Andi Kleen wrote: > On Friday 07 September 2007 05:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Since the core kernel routines need to reference cpu_sibling_map, >> whether it be a static array or a per_cpu data variable, an access >> function has been defined. >> >> In addition, changes have been made to the ia64 and ppc64 arch's to >> move the cpu_sibling_map from a static cpumask_t array [NR_CPUS] to >> be per_cpu cpumask_t arrays. >> >> Note that I do not have the ability to build or test patch 3/3, the >> ppc64 changes. >> >> Patches are referenced against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 . > > It would be better if you could redo the patches with the original patches > reverted, not incremental changes. In the end we'll need a full patch set > with full changelog anyways, not a series of incremental fixes.
Will do. Thanks. I take it I should run a diff against rc4 (w/o mm1) to regenerate a complete patch, including the prior ones? > > Also I guess some powerpc testers would be needed. Perhaps cc the > maintainers? I've been looking for where to Cc: those guys (as Andrew probably realizes from his extra "spam" from me. ;-) Thanks! Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
