[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohponks5tAHGt6wYP13W8y6JiVVAhNW2wTK4GH=MSWe7wcEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 07:45:45 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com,
charles.garcia-tobin@....com, arvind.chauhan@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.10-rc2
On 18 May 2013 05:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> Well, I actually meant "can you please verify your belief?". :-)
>
> And that's because I'm wondering why the zero-day build testing doesn't
> catch this problem. Apparently, it doesn't build .configs with cpufreq
> governors configured as modules, although I believe it does test
> "make allmodconfig" for a couple of architectures at least. What gives?
My assumption was wrong. Actually cpufreq_governor.c is never compiled
as module, but cpufreq_ondemand is...
And this routine isn't used from cpufreq_ondemand but cpufreq_governor..
But we were lucky that we didn't get a error here and EXPORT_SYMBOL
is still required :)
--
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