From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the origin tree Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:07:27 +1100 Message-ID: <20121010110727.9cfd1d80a27e0f308131baed@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20121010102150.81c192c6fdf60689dc823b20@canb.auug.org.au> <20121009164514.b7a7e227.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA256"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__10_Oct_2012_11_07_27_+1100_XoIO9eDzcvU5JeRh" Return-path: Received: from haggis.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.10]:40507 "EHLO members.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750762Ab2JJAHf (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:07:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20121009164514.b7a7e227.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yasuaki Ishimatsu , ppc-dev --Signature=_Wed__10_Oct_2012_11_07_27_+1100_XoIO9eDzcvU5JeRh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Andrew, On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:14 -0700 Andrew Morton = wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:21:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: >=20 > > I can't see what the point of the "pfn" variable is >=20 > This: >=20 > --- 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 =3D (memblock_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) / PAGES_PER_SECTIO= N; > for (i =3D 0; i < sections_to_remove; i++) { > unsigned long pfn =3D start_pfn + i * PAGES_PER_SECTION; > - ret =3D __remove_pages(zone, start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION); > + ret =3D __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. :-( >=20 > It was first sighted October 3. Yeah, my mistake. But it never made it to linux-next. > > I have reverted that commit for today. > >=20 > > 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)? >=20 > 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. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au --Signature=_Wed__10_Oct_2012_11_07_27_+1100_XoIO9eDzcvU5JeRh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQdLw/AAoJEECxmPOUX5FEaI0P/j6AS0q7CqweKGTA23sGoQfh rGO36Dv98+dnOuAy81e0SSFWFnAdj9dqIzEPDXcE60W7mgMfAnrbDXXct/z9336A Nc3g19MU+J8IeEyz6iUhEa+cuhqZpFeYC6c0nyvrtzIHNYWz9tqtkpihtA5FycL2 nJZxGIt+wThITKT7xq0ccbhbDXSOaS1fQb0XnvmEITLEMz1sqnvs3gop2euQYc87 5Ni2ePWyqa/qWedon66VvROl/G5nK24s+q9pLigxEaF0QPkg5gorIHBrwuFBjjh1 VnQFUZ1R5fJyIdTx2Rs472Hp+ff69aB1Izw/cLq5nrRMJ7qqtEOmMfDNtbT1xwhR kEMN8hBhPY8p665cGH9fUUzlUvOsFUv74AvtPQ9mbtd99Cl34k58SZUKpza3r/km DAR0kbTcrInc8EAA27fpohTuJUwYqgn32sNqnv1kPl9zQveLV+zkYQbTD/1LnFRC UxHvdciLcqt5MH4kc0HJDxTIEAt1ZyJNig1Ym5wJpm8C7Z9VZk03+ymtE5gQqEwf TRTC3EP1D8LckgkfEpi1hRy6LT0ysI+vLDuALY0skS97CADKPvcqBTHp+tpC86bc vjqSsB/Ey8lV5l/OsAdBQAHLSngozSFZepNo+cAAAgzbiZusiooQeMKExP+O58ZW 88o4SSSnXwkRayDAjxB9 =Q7Le -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__10_Oct_2012_11_07_27_+1100_XoIO9eDzcvU5JeRh--