[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090414020544.GA3738@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:05:44 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c
* Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> wrote:
> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/1c98aa7424ff163637d8321674ec58dee28152d4
> Commit: 1c98aa7424ff163637d8321674ec58dee28152d4
> Parent: 2e1c63b7ed36532b68f0eddd6a184d7ba1013b89
> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> AuthorDate: Mon Apr 13 18:09:20 2009 -0700
> Committer: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> CommitDate: Mon Apr 13 18:09:20 2009 -0700
>
> Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c
>
> We ended up incorrectly using '&cur' instead of '&readin' in the
> work_on_cpu() -> smp_call_function_single() transformation in commit
> 01599fca6758d2cd133e78f87426fc851c9ea725 ("cpufreq: use
> smp_call_function_[single|many]() in acpi-cpufreq.c").
>
> Andrew explains:
> "OK, the acpi tree went and had conflicting changes merged into it after
> I'd written the patch and it appears that I incorrectly reverted part
> of 18b2646fe3babeb40b34a0c1751e0bf5adfdc64c while fixing the resulting
> rejects.
>
> Switching it to `readin' looks correct."
>
> Acked-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> index 3e3cd3d..837c2c4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ static unsigned int get_measured_perf(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> unsigned int perf_percent;
> unsigned int retval;
>
> - if (smp_call_function_single(cpu, read_measured_perf_ctrs, &cur, 1))
> + if (smp_call_function_single(cpu, read_measured_perf_ctrs, &readin, 1))
> return 0;
Ah, this might explain a few weird smp_processor_id() runtime
warnings i got a few hours ago in that area of code (but didnt track
it down at that time) when i updated to at around ~80a04d3.
(Never noticed the build warning - there's still too many of them.)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists