On 08/02/2010 09:28 AM, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:23:10AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Lots (if not all) of the arm builds failed for next-20100802 with these
>> errors:
>>
>> arch/arm/mm/init.c: In function 'arm_bootmem_init':
>> arch/arm/mm/init.c:184: error: implicit declaration of function 'memblock_start_pfn'
>> arch/arm/mm/init.c:186: error: implicit declaration of function 'memblock_end_pfn'
>> arch/arm/mm/init.c:188: error: implicit declaration of function 'memblock_size_bytes'
>>
>> Caused by commit 53e16bfaf19346f59b3502e207aa66c61332075c ("memblock:
>> Introduce for_each_memblock() and new accessors, and use it") interacting
>> with commit 2778f62056ada442414392d7ccd41188bb631619 ("ARM: initial LMB
>> trial") and some others from the arm tree.
>
> Please, no, don't break the memblock code now. I'm not reworking the
> ARM implementation just as the merge window has opened - especially
> as the ARM implementation has now been pulled into other people's
> trees.
>
> If there's changes to memblock which haven't been in linux-next (which,
> as this is a new failure, that is most definitely the case), then they
> shouldn't be going into this merge window.
>
Ben, what's your tack on this?
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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
