[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101118101459.472d540b.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:14:59 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc: Zimny Lech <napohybelskurwysynom2010@...il.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for November 17
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:59:20 -0800 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> Why was #include <linux/smp_lock.h> removed from <linux/hardirq.h> ?
>
> I added #include <linux/smp_lock.h> to i387.h, but them mm/filemap.c build fails
> with the same error:
>
> linux-next-20101117/mm/filemap.c: In function 'iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic':
> linux-next-20101117/mm/filemap.c:1936: error: implicit declaration of function 'kernel_locked'
Was this fixed before Linus took that patch? Also, the #include of
linux/smp_lock.h in linux/hardirq.h was the only line between #ifdef
CONFIG_PREEMPT and #endif ... was this patch even reviewed?
Maybe (after it was reviewed) it should have been given more time in
linux-next before being merged.
--
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