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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/