On Thursday 05 February 2009 08:54:20 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.o: In function `minimum_sampling_rate':
> (.opd+0x30): multiple definition of `minimum_sampling_rate'
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.o:(.opd+0x18): first defined here
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.o: In function `minimum_sampling_rate':
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c:64: multiple definition of
`.minimum_sampling_rate'
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.o:drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c:62:
first defined here
>
> Caused by commit f935195b8a341d7ffdf600dd98a657f2f09b7908 ("[CPUFREQ]
> ondemand/conservative: sanitize sampling_rate restrictions").
>
> I have reverted that commit for today.
Argh, I test compiled the conservative as module and ondemand permanent,
thus this bug did not show up.
The minimum_sampling_rate function must be declared static in both:
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
and
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
This could be done by just adding this in the patch itself
(no newline needed).
Could Dave also drop the patch, declare the two functions static and
re-add it and you pick it up automatically with the next merge or
do I have to send an on top fix (or can you, Dave, just do this
little change)?
Sorry and thanks,
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
