[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100530104303.15864d35.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 10:43:03 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure in Linus' tree
Hi Linus,
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 May 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Caused by commit 0ac0c0d0f837c499afd02a802f9cf52d3027fa3b ("cpusets:
> > randomize node rotor used in cpuset_mem_spread_node()").
> >
> > This commit assumes that __node_random() exists if (MAX_NUMNODES > 1) and
> > uses it if CONFIG_CPUSETS is set, but only creates it for x86 ... there
> > is at least one other architecture where those conditions are true.
>
> Yeah, looking at that, it seems totally idiotic.
>
> Why is that "__node_random()" in x86 code at all? There is absolutely
> nothing x86 about it that I can tell. And now I have an ia64 merge that
> just duplicates that moronic function.
So, is it reasonable for me to ask you to revert commit
0ac0c0d0f837c499afd02a802f9cf52d3027fa3b ("cpusets: randomize node rotor
used in cpuset_mem_spread_node()")? Reverting it won't break ia64 (since
their fix was to just add code that would then be unreferenced).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists