On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 16:27 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > Just make sure it's the one I sent you, not your original one ... the
> > original one won't compile on voyager.
> >
>
> Sorry, I saw your patch, but while I was trying to work out how you
> changed it I forgot about it. I actually did test-compile a voyager
> config and it works for me; how does it break for you?
>
> > Since voyager is now completely broken in mainline (again) do you want
> > me to take these through the voyager tree?
>
> Sure. I need the prerequisite patch which pulls things into smpcommon.c
> (i386-common-smp), but the voyager patch is otherwise independent of
> everything else I'm doing.
The original one you sent had duplicate smp_call_function...
definitions. The interdiff between the one you've attached now and the
one I sent is pretty tiny:
diff -u b/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c BUILD-voyager/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c
--- b/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c
+++ BUILD-voyager/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c 2007-05-05 21:28:12.000000000 -0500
@@ -1046,13 +1046,12 @@
}
static int
-voyager_smp_call_function_mask (cpumask_t cpumask,
- void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
- int wait)
+voyager_smp_call_function_mask (cpumask_t cpumask, void (*func) (void *info),
+ void *info, int wait)
{
struct call_data_struct data;
- u32 mask = cpumask.bits[0];
+ u32 mask = cpus_addr(cpumask)[0];
mask &= ~(1<<smp_processor_id());
if (!mask)
So it's basically just line breaking a function prototype and the correct usage of cpumask via cpus_addr().
James
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
