On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:47:56AM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> 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.
>
> Dave, I have found another minor issue and will send you three patches.
> Two cleanups and the third fixing this one as on top patch.
>
> Decide yourself what way is best to add things (revert and re-add or
> just add the three I post).
> The problem of the on top approach could be that if this is merged
> to linux next you could have a non-building condition if you compile in
I added the 'static's directly to the patches, and regenerated the tree
on kernel.org
For other stuff, unless it's a build-fix, send an incremental diff ?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--
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
