Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:14 -0700 Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:21:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au>
> wrote:
>
> > I can't see what the point of the "pfn" variable is
>
> This:
>
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c~a
> +++ a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static int pseries_remove_memblock(unsig
> sections_to_remove = (memblock_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) / PAGES_PER_SECTION;
> for (i = 0; i < sections_to_remove; i++) {
> unsigned long pfn = start_pfn + i * PAGES_PER_SECTION;
> - ret = __remove_pages(zone, start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> + ret = __remove_pages(zone, pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> }Can we get that fix to Linus ASAP, please? > > and this patch never > > appeared in linux-next before being merged. :-( > > It was first sighted October 3. Yeah, my mistake. But it never made it to linux-next. > > I have reverted that commit for today. > > > > If this patch truly was authored yesterday (according the Author Date in > > git), why was it merged yesterday while still under discussion? And the > > latest update to it still has this build problem ... did anyone even try > > to build this for powerpc (since that architecture was obviously > > affected)? > > Apparently not - the ppc bit was a best-effort fixup for a patch which > addresses an x86 problem. Right, and that is one of the reasons we have linux-next - to test for cross architecture problems. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
pgphuV9fegZfc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
