On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:48:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in
> kernel/Makefile between commits 60fc28746a7b ("locking: Move the spinlock
> code to kernel/locking/") and cd4d241d57c9 ("locking: Move the lglocks
> code to kernel/locking/") from the tip tree and commit f5639052d567
> ("lglock: map to spinlock when !CONFIG_SMP") from the akpm-current tree.
>
> I fixed it up (dropping the kernel/Makefile section of the akpm-current
> commit and adding the below patch) and can carry the fix as necessary (no
> action is required).
Won't splitting the Makefile change into a separate commit break
bisection, in particular if you have the changes adding inlines but you
also compile in lglock.o? Shouldn't this be squashed into the merge
itself, keeping the kernel/Makefile section of my original patch?
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:45:25 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] lglock: fixup for code movement
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/locking/Makefile | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/Makefile b/kernel/locking/Makefile
> index baab8e5e7f66..bb3c65930a20 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/Makefile
> +++ b/kernel/locking/Makefile
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>
> -obj-y += mutex.o semaphore.o rwsem.o lglock.o
> +obj-y += mutex.o semaphore.o rwsem.o
>
> ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER
> CFLAGS_REMOVE_lockdep.o = -pg
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ CFLAGS_REMOVE_mutex-debug.o = -pg
> CFLAGS_REMOVE_rtmutex-debug.o = -pg
> endif
>
> +obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += lglock.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES) += mutex-debug.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) += lockdep.o
> ifeq ($(CONFIG_PROC_FS),y)
> --
> 1.8.4.2
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
