From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46E171AF.8060502@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:43:43 -0700 From: Mike Travis MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] core: fix build error when referencing arch specific structures References: <20070907040943.467530005@sgi.com> <200709070828.05730.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <200709070828.05730.ak@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Andi Kleen wrote: > On Friday 07 September 2007 05:09, travis@sgi.com wrote: >> Since the core kernel routines need to reference cpu_sibling_map, >> whether it be a static array or a per_cpu data variable, an access >> function has been defined. >> >> In addition, changes have been made to the ia64 and ppc64 arch's to >> move the cpu_sibling_map from a static cpumask_t array [NR_CPUS] to >> be per_cpu cpumask_t arrays. >> >> Note that I do not have the ability to build or test patch 3/3, the >> ppc64 changes. >> >> Patches are referenced against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 . > > It would be better if you could redo the patches with the original patches > reverted, not incremental changes. In the end we'll need a full patch set > with full changelog anyways, not a series of incremental fixes. Will do. Thanks. I take it I should run a diff against rc4 (w/o mm1) to regenerate a complete patch, including the prior ones? > > Also I guess some powerpc testers would be needed. Perhaps cc the > maintainers? I've been looking for where to Cc: those guys (as Andrew probably realizes from his extra "spam" from me. ;-) Thanks! Mike -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org