On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:52:29AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:36:51 -0400 Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > commit 184c44d2049c4db7ef6ec65794546954da2c6a0e
> > Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Date: Wed May 2 19:27:08 2007 +0200
> >
> > [PATCH] x86-64: fix x86_64-mm-sched-clock-share
> >
> > Fix for the following patch. Provide dummy cpufreq functions when
> > CPUFREQ is not compiled in.
> >
> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
> > Cc: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
> >
> > I don't remember seeing any problem here, so I'm not entirely sure what
> > this was supposed to be fixing. Perhaps the -mm-esque patch name
> > will provide Andrew/Andi clues. It lacks sufficient information for
> > my brain to guess what the problem was.
>
> Oh geeze. sched-clock-share went through about 18 different versions, was
> merged, unmerged, remerged, dropped, etc. I don't recall at what stage in
> this mess the above fix was inserted, sorry.
>
> > "Fix for the following patch" is also something that really should
> > never be added to a git changelog too, because 'next' means absolutely
> > nothing to me, nor I expect 99% of changelog readers.
>
> 184c44d2049c4db7ef6ec65794546954da2c6a0e should never have existed,
> actually. I intended that Andi fold it into the base patch prior to
> sending it to Linus. He normally does that, but it looks like this
> one was handled as a standalone commit for some reason.
So lets see what happens if we revert it ?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
