From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure in Linus' tree Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 18:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20100528105719.a356ba4f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53394 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752919Ab0E1BMa (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 21:12:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100528105719.a356ba4f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jack Steiner , Lee Schermerhorn On Fri, 28 May 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Caused by commit 0ac0c0d0f837c499afd02a802f9cf52d3027fa3b ("cpusets: > randomize node rotor used in cpuset_mem_spread_node()"). > > This commit assumes that __node_random() exists if (MAX_NUMNODES > 1) and > uses it if CONFIG_CPUSETS is set, but only creates it for x86 ... there > is at least one other architecture where those conditions are true. Yeah, looking at that, it seems totally idiotic. Why is that "__node_random()" in x86 code at all? There is absolutely nothing x86 about it that I can tell. And now I have an ia64 merge that just duplicates that moronic function. Linus