Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Rusty, > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:34:31 -0400 Dan Streetman <ddstreet@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Dan Streetman <ddstreet@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> Only include the built-in and per-module param_lock, and corresponding >> >> lock/unlock functions, if sysfs is enabled. If there is no sysfs there >> >> is no need for locking kernel params. >> >> >> >> This fixes a build break when CONFIG_SYSFS is not enabled, introduced >> >> by commit b51d23e. >> > >> > This doesn't even come close to applying to my tree? >> >> sorry, I had the !CONFIG_MODULES patch in my tree also, so this was on >> top of that one: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/24/550 >> >> I can resend that one, on top of this one, or you can fix it up. >> >> Sorry for not getting it right the first time ;-) > > This is what I ended up applying to yesterday's linux-next: Thanks, added correct description to previous patch and applied this on top. Sorry for the hassle, Rusty. -- 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
