On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:08:39AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:58:34 -0400 Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 ?
> >
>
> <grep flurry>
>
> OK, here: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc5/2.6.21-rc5-mm...
>
> So I guess what we want to do here is to revert that patch, test i386
> allnoconfig and then fix up anything which breaks.
Nothing breaks for me with make ARCH=i386 bzImage on my x86-64 box
(which should be the same as a native build).
The functions that complain in that patch header don't seem to actually
exist in mainline at all. (`init_sched_clock' and `call_r_s_f')
Did this patch perhaps jump the gun, and these are -mm only ?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
