Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:14 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:21:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I can't see what the point of the "pfn" variable is
>
> This:
>
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c~a
> +++ a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static int pseries_remove_memblock(unsig
> sections_to_remove = (memblock_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) / PAGES_PER_SECTION;
> for (i = 0; i < sections_to_remove; i++) {
> unsigned long pfn = start_pfn + i * PAGES_PER_SECTION;
> - ret = __remove_pages(zone, start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> + ret = __remove_pages(zone, pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> }
Can we get that fix to Linus ASAP, please?
> > and this patch never
> > appeared in linux-next before being merged. :-(
>
> It was first sighted October 3.
Yeah, my mistake. But it never made it to linux-next.
> > I have reverted that commit for today.
> >
> > If this patch truly was authored yesterday (according the Author Date in
> > git), why was it merged yesterday while still under discussion? And the
> > latest update to it still has this build problem ... did anyone even try
> > to build this for powerpc (since that architecture was obviously
> > affected)?
>
> Apparently not - the ppc bit was a best-effort fixup for a patch which
> addresses an x86 problem.
Right, and that is one of the reasons we have linux-next - to test for
cross architecture problems.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgp4aIaOKMnTg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
