[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE46443.2000002@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:24:51 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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 11/17/10 15:14, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 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
This build error was in linux-next of NOV. 17. What mainline base did it use?
I don't exactly know how to answer your question...
> 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.
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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