On Friday, May 17, 2013 07:22:05 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17 May 2013 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:13:37 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 17 May 2013 02:21, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > While I kind of understand why you want [3/3] to go into 3.10, I'm wondering > >> > about the other two patches. Why exactly are they needed now? > >> > >> First one: > >> > >> cpufreq: Add EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for have_governor_per_policy > >> > >> is required so that governors can be compiled as module. Otherwise they > >> may break.. I haven't tried that but I believe that is the case. > > > > Did you try to build them as modules? > > That's what: "I haven't tried that but I believe that is the case.".. > Modules need variables to be exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > to be used by them.. And I thought this is pretty straight forward. Well, I actually meant "can you please verify your belief?". :-) And that's because I'm wondering why the zero-day build testing doesn't catch this problem. Apparently, it doesn't build .configs with cpufreq governors configured as modules, although I believe it does test "make allmodconfig" for a couple of architectures at least. What gives? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
