Hi James,
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:18:38 -0500 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks for finding this. The fix looks to be a dummy definition of this
> function for x86_64. The final fix (which has been under discussion)
> will be the elimination of safe_smp_processor_id() altogether.
>
> I've merged this into the
>
> [VOYAGER] x86: add {safe,hard}_smp_processor_id to smp_ops
>
> patch and respun the tree (and built it with an x86-64 cross compiler),
> so it should be safe to include next time around
Thanks. We will see how we do (later) in the morning.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpLQLUFaFO2M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
