Re: ppc32 MMCR0_PMXE saga.

2005-02-03 Thread Mikael Pettersson
Thomas Gleixner writes: > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 23:47 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > I'm at a loss to explain whats been happening with this symbol. > > The macro was duplicated in -mm1. > I sent a patch against -mm1 > The patch went upstream without the perfctr-ppc.patch, which contained > t

Re: ppc32 MMCR0_PMXE saga.

2005-02-03 Thread Andrew Morton
Mikael Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thomas Gleixner writes: > > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 23:47 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > I'm at a loss to explain whats been happening with this symbol. > > > > The macro was duplicated in -mm1. > > I sent a patch against -mm1 > > The patc

Re: ppc32 MMCR0_PMXE saga.

2005-02-03 Thread Albert Herranz
--- Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > I'm at a loss to explain whats been happening with > this symbol. My patch was against the -mm series, as reported in the original subject. In the -mm series, the perfctr-ppc.patch already defines that symbol. As that patch contains all the perfctr

Re: ppc32 MMCR0_PMXE saga.

2005-02-02 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 23:47 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > I'm at a loss to explain whats been happening with this symbol. The macro was duplicated in -mm1. I sent a patch against -mm1 The patch went upstream without the perfctr-ppc.patch, which contained the macro define in regs.h. So a bit of confu