[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140905113114.GS30467@titan.lakedaemon.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:31:14 -0400
From: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 1
Tejun, Christoph,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:11:23AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:07AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Subject: irqchip: Properly fetch the per cpu offset
> >
> > The raw_cpu_read() conversion dropped the fetch of the offset
> > from base->percpu_base in gic_get_percpu_base.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> >
> > Index: linux/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> > +++ linux/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static struct gic_chip_data gic_data[MAX
> > #ifdef CONFIG_GIC_NON_BANKED
> > static void __iomem *gic_get_percpu_base(union gic_base *base)
> > {
> > - return raw_cpu_read(base->percpu_base);
> > + return raw_cpu_read(*base->percpu_base);
>
> I suppose this should go through percpu/for-3.18-consistent-ops? Can
> we please cc irq folks and get acks?
Could Thomas and I get a pointer to the original patch and thread that
caused the error?
thx,
Jason.
--
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