On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 17:29 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM, richard -rw- weinberger > <richard.weinberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice > >> to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get > >> a tested-by. > > > > UML is affected: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/8/186 > > > > I wasted an hour finding out why it is crashing. > > Instead of testing kernels I really should read more LKML. ;-) > > Hmm. > > Ben - how about that > > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu, cpu_devices); > > approach that Richard uses in his patch, instead of the kcalloc? That seems perfectly good. > And > clearly UM should also do that CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES thing with > your patch. > > Richard - does Ben's patch work for you too if you just add "select > GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES" in the UM Kconfig too (Kconfig.common, probably)? Sorry, I meant to cover UM as well but I couldn't see how its Kconfig files were organised. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. - John Lennon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
