On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 00:39 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:31:21 +0900 Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 10:03 +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 04:18:23PM +0900, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
> > > > Move definition of hard_smp_processor_id to asm/smp.h on alpha, m32r,
> > > > powerpc, s390, sparc, sparc64, and um architectures.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > diff -urNp linux-2.6.21-rc2/include/asm-alpha/smp.h
> > > > linux-2.6.21-rc2-hwcpuid/include/asm-alpha/smp.h
> > > > --- linux-2.6.21-rc2/include/asm-alpha/smp.h 2007-02-05
> > > > 03:44:54.000000000 +0900
> > > > +++ linux-2.6.21-rc2-hwcpuid/include/asm-alpha/smp.h 2007-03-07
> > > > 13:34:14.000000000 +0900
> > > > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ int smp_call_function_on_cpu(void (*func
> > > >
> > > > #else /* CONFIG_SMP */
> > > >
> > > > +#define hard_smp_processor_id() 0
> > > > #define smp_call_function_on_cpu(func,info,retry,wait,cpu) ({ 0; })
> > > >
> > > > #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> > >
> > > /me thinks you should merge this patch with patch 1. Otherwise there is no
> > > hard_smp_processor_id() defined on any architecture if only patch 1 is
> > > applied. That would break a git bisect search.
> > Hi Heiko,
> >
> > Thank you for reviewing the patch-set. The patches have already been
> > merged in Andrew's tree but I will take your advice into account when
> > submitting new patches. I certainly would not like to break bisect
> > searches.
> >
>
> I swizzled your patches around so the bisect problem should be gone.
>
> At least, the one which Heiko identified - there might be others.
Thank you for fixing that Andrew. I have doubled checked and there
should not be any other issues.
Fernando
_______________________________________________
fastboot mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
