* [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
@ 2012-03-08 20:13 ` John Kacur
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: John Kacur @ 2012-03-08 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, rt-users
Cc: lkml, Steven Rostedt, John Kacur, Clark Williams
When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
defined the following build break occurs.
/home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
/home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
!CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
---
include/linux/preempt.h | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
index fa40695..58d8982 100644
--- a/include/linux/preempt.h
+++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
@@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ do { \
#define preempt_disable_notrace() do { } while (0)
#define preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace() do { } while (0)
#define preempt_enable_notrace() do { } while (0)
+#define preempt_check_resched_rt() do { } while (0)
#endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */
--
1.7.2.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
@ 2012-03-08 20:13 ` John Kacur
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: John Kacur @ 2012-03-08 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, rt-users
Cc: lkml, Steven Rostedt, John Kacur, Clark Williams
When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
defined the following build break occurs.
/home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
/home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
!CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
---
include/linux/preempt.h | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
index fa40695..58d8982 100644
--- a/include/linux/preempt.h
+++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
@@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ do { \
#define preempt_disable_notrace() do { } while (0)
#define preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace() do { } while (0)
#define preempt_enable_notrace() do { } while (0)
+#define preempt_check_resched_rt() do { } while (0)
#endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */
--
1.7.2.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
2012-03-08 20:13 ` John Kacur
@ 2012-03-08 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2012-03-08 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Kacur; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, rt-users, lkml, Clark Williams
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
> When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
> defined the following build break occurs.
>
> /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
> /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
> make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
> make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>
> This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
> !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Why Clark's SOB? Did he write it and send it to you?
-- Steve
> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/preempt.h | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
> index fa40695..58d8982 100644
> --- a/include/linux/preempt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ do { \
> #define preempt_disable_notrace() do { } while (0)
> #define preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace() do { } while (0)
> #define preempt_enable_notrace() do { } while (0)
> +#define preempt_check_resched_rt() do { } while (0)
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
@ 2012-03-08 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2012-03-08 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Kacur; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, rt-users, lkml, Clark Williams
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
> When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
> defined the following build break occurs.
>
> /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
> /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
> make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
> make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>
> This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
> !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Why Clark's SOB? Did he write it and send it to you?
-- Steve
> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/preempt.h | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
> index fa40695..58d8982 100644
> --- a/include/linux/preempt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ do { \
> #define preempt_disable_notrace() do { } while (0)
> #define preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace() do { } while (0)
> #define preempt_enable_notrace() do { } while (0)
> +#define preempt_check_resched_rt() do { } while (0)
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
2012-03-08 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
(?)
@ 2012-03-08 20:22 ` Clark Williams
2012-03-08 20:34 ` Steven Rostedt
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Clark Williams @ 2012-03-08 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: John Kacur, Thomas Gleixner, rt-users, lkml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 979 bytes --]
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:17:20 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
> > When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
> > defined the following build break occurs.
> >
> > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
> > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
> > make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
> > make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
> > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
> >
> > This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
> > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
>
> Why Clark's SOB? Did he write it and send it to you?
I suppose to be technically correct it should have been a Tested-by:
John found it while I was working on it and I tested it for him.
Clark
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
2012-03-08 20:22 ` Clark Williams
@ 2012-03-08 20:34 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2012-03-08 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Clark Williams; +Cc: John Kacur, Thomas Gleixner, rt-users, lkml
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:22 -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:17:20 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
> > > When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
> > > defined the following build break occurs.
> > >
> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
> > > make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
> > > make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
> > > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
> > >
> > > This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
> > > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
> >
> > Why Clark's SOB? Did he write it and send it to you?
>
> I suppose to be technically correct it should have been a Tested-by:
>
> John found it while I was working on it and I tested it for him.
Either a "Reported-by" if you mentioned it to John and he fixed it, or a
"Tested-by" if he fixed it and you tested it. You can have both if that
is true too.
But "Signed-off-by" has supposed legal significance. It means that you
are responsible for this patch. Either you authored it, or it went
through you to get to the git repo (ie. you are the maintainer that took
the patch).
All other tags are FYI only. Only the SOB is required and has real
meaning. Also, you should *never* add a SOB to a patch without the
person explicitly giving it to you.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
@ 2012-03-08 20:34 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2012-03-08 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Clark Williams; +Cc: John Kacur, Thomas Gleixner, rt-users, lkml
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:22 -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:17:20 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
> > > When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
> > > defined the following build break occurs.
> > >
> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
> > > make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
> > > make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
> > > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
> > >
> > > This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
> > > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
> >
> > Why Clark's SOB? Did he write it and send it to you?
>
> I suppose to be technically correct it should have been a Tested-by:
>
> John found it while I was working on it and I tested it for him.
Either a "Reported-by" if you mentioned it to John and he fixed it, or a
"Tested-by" if he fixed it and you tested it. You can have both if that
is true too.
But "Signed-off-by" has supposed legal significance. It means that you
are responsible for this patch. Either you authored it, or it went
through you to get to the git repo (ie. you are the maintainer that took
the patch).
All other tags are FYI only. Only the SOB is required and has real
meaning. Also, you should *never* add a SOB to a patch without the
person explicitly giving it to you.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
2012-03-08 20:34 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2012-03-08 21:04 ` John Kacur
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: John Kacur @ 2012-03-08 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Clark Williams, Thomas Gleixner, rt-users, lkml
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:22 -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:17:20 -0500
>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
>> > > When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
>> > > defined the following build break occurs.
>> > >
>> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
>> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
>> > > make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
>> > > make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
>> > > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>> > >
>> > > This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
>> > > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
>> >
>> > Why Clark's SOB? Did he write it and send it to you?
>>
>> I suppose to be technically correct it should have been a Tested-by:
>>
>> John found it while I was working on it and I tested it for him.
>
> Either a "Reported-by" if you mentioned it to John and he fixed it, or a
> "Tested-by" if he fixed it and you tested it. You can have both if that
> is true too.
>
> But "Signed-off-by" has supposed legal significance. It means that you
> are responsible for this patch. Either you authored it, or it went
> through you to get to the git repo (ie. you are the maintainer that took
> the patch).
>
> All other tags are FYI only. Only the SOB is required and has real
> meaning. Also, you should *never* add a SOB to a patch without the
> person explicitly giving it to you.
>
> -- Steve
>
Good, understood. Please change to
Tested-by: Clark Willilams <williams@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Note that the patch is for 3.2.9-rt17
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
@ 2012-03-08 21:04 ` John Kacur
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: John Kacur @ 2012-03-08 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Clark Williams, Thomas Gleixner, rt-users, lkml
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:22 -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:17:20 -0500
>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
>> > > When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
>> > > defined the following build break occurs.
>> > >
>> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
>> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
>> > > make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
>> > > make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
>> > > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>> > >
>> > > This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
>> > > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
>> >
>> > Why Clark's SOB? Did he write it and send it to you?
>>
>> I suppose to be technically correct it should have been a Tested-by:
>>
>> John found it while I was working on it and I tested it for him.
>
> Either a "Reported-by" if you mentioned it to John and he fixed it, or a
> "Tested-by" if he fixed it and you tested it. You can have both if that
> is true too.
>
> But "Signed-off-by" has supposed legal significance. It means that you
> are responsible for this patch. Either you authored it, or it went
> through you to get to the git repo (ie. you are the maintainer that took
> the patch).
>
> All other tags are FYI only. Only the SOB is required and has real
> meaning. Also, you should *never* add a SOB to a patch without the
> person explicitly giving it to you.
>
> -- Steve
>
Good, understood. Please change to
Tested-by: Clark Willilams <williams@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Note that the patch is for 3.2.9-rt17
Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
2012-03-08 20:13 ` John Kacur
@ 2012-03-13 19:24 ` Steven Rostedt
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2012-03-13 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner; +Cc: rt-users, lkml, Clark Williams, John Kacur
Thomas,
Can you apply this patch (with the fixed "tested-by") and push out a new
3.2-rt?
This bug is causing one of my "stable tests" to fail, and I wont push
out a new stable test until it passes. But I also wont add a fix that is
not in your tree. This means that 3.0-rt is being held back until this
gets applied.
Thanks,
-- Steve
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
> When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
> defined the following build break occurs.
>
> /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
> /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
> make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
> make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>
> This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
> !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/preempt.h | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
> index fa40695..58d8982 100644
> --- a/include/linux/preempt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ do { \
> #define preempt_disable_notrace() do { } while (0)
> #define preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace() do { } while (0)
> #define preempt_enable_notrace() do { } while (0)
> +#define preempt_check_resched_rt() do { } while (0)
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'
@ 2012-03-13 19:24 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2012-03-13 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner; +Cc: rt-users, lkml, Clark Williams, John Kacur
Thomas,
Can you apply this patch (with the fixed "tested-by") and push out a new
3.2-rt?
This bug is causing one of my "stable tests" to fail, and I wont push
out a new stable test until it passes. But I also wont add a fix that is
not in your tree. This means that 3.0-rt is being held back until this
gets applied.
Thanks,
-- Steve
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
> When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
> defined the following build break occurs.
>
> /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
> /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
> make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
> make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>
> This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
> !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/preempt.h | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
> index fa40695..58d8982 100644
> --- a/include/linux/preempt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ do { \
> #define preempt_disable_notrace() do { } while (0)
> #define preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace() do { } while (0)
> #define preempt_enable_notrace() do { } while (0)
> +#define preempt_check_resched_rt() do { } while (0)
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-03-13 19:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-03-08 20:13 [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt' John Kacur
2012-03-08 20:13 ` John Kacur
2012-03-08 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-03-08 20:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-03-08 20:22 ` Clark Williams
2012-03-08 20:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-03-08 20:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-03-08 21:04 ` John Kacur
2012-03-08 21:04 ` John Kacur
2012-03-13 19:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-03-13 19:24 ` Steven Rostedt
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.