On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 03:46 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know quite the detail of the new cpumask stuff ... It could be
> > > as simple as passing a pointer instead of the value in the
> > > cpumask_scnprintf call though...
> >
> > Actually, I'll do more tests and if that ends up being the only needed
> > change, I'll push your patch with that small change out to powerpc next
> > tonight.
>
> Sorry about that, here's an incremental... let me know if you want the
> whole thing re-posted.
Nah, that's fine. I did that exact change in the patch before putting
in my tree. I haven't had a chance to test boot tho, did you ?
Cheers,
Ben.
> Thanks.
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> index f3e3ae3..b33f041 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ static ssize_t shared_cpu_map_show(struct kobject *k,
> struct kobj_attribute *att
> len = PAGE_SIZE - 2;
>
> if (len > 1) {
> - n = cpumask_scnprintf(buf, len, cache->shared_cpu_map);
> + n = cpumask_scnprintf(buf, len, &cache->shared_cpu_map);
> buf[n++] = '\n';
> buf[n] = '\0';
> }
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
