Hi Andrew,

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:14 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:21:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > I can't see what the point of the "pfn" variable is
> 
> This:
> 
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c~a
> +++ a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static int pseries_remove_memblock(unsig
>  	sections_to_remove = (memblock_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) / PAGES_PER_SECTION;
>  	for (i = 0; i < sections_to_remove; i++) {
>  		unsigned long pfn = start_pfn + i * PAGES_PER_SECTION;
> -		ret = __remove_pages(zone, start_pfn,  PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> +		ret = __remove_pages(zone, pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
>  		if (ret)
>  			return ret;
>  	}

Can we get that fix to Linus ASAP, please?

> > and this patch never
> > appeared in linux-next before being merged.  :-(
> 
> It was first sighted October 3.

Yeah, my mistake. But it never made it to linux-next.

> > I have reverted that commit for today.
> > 
> > If this patch truly was authored yesterday (according the Author Date in
> > git), why was it merged yesterday while still under discussion?  And the
> > latest update to it still has this build problem ... did anyone even try
> > to build this for powerpc (since that architecture was obviously
> > affected)?
> 
> Apparently not - the ppc bit was a best-effort fixup for a patch which
> addresses an x86 problem.

Right, and that is one of the reasons we have linux-next - to test for
cross architecture problems.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au