Re: 2.6.31-rc7-git2: Reported regressions 2.6.29 -> 2.6.30

From: Rusty Russell
Date: Thu Aug 27 2009 - 06:53:31 EST

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:06:47 am Andrew Morton wrote:
> So in my tree I reworked it so that the new `force' arg gets passed
> through appropriately. It compiles cleanly but I'd suggest that Len
> simply drop "misc:work_on_cpu-acpi" and we send it back to Rusty for
> some rechecking (sorry).

Sure. My main motivation is to get rid of cpumasks on the stack; while
there, I tried to fix this up properly.

> Rusty/Len: please work out why the title for that patch went silly.

git-quiltimport uses the patch names, and doesn't extract the title. I
assume that's what Stephen uses. I didn't rename the patch when I rewrote
it not to use work_on_cpu.

> Rusty, please self-administer smackings for
> struct set_throttling_info sti
> = { pr, p_throttling, t_state.target_state };
> these things always start out simple and end up not-simple, so some poor
> schmuck has to clean them up so stuff doesn't break.
> struct set_throttling_info sti = {
> .pr = pr,
> .p_throttling = p_throttling,
> .target_state = t_state.target_state,
> .force = force
> };
> is better!

Meh... same concept applies to function arguments, and we rely on typechecking
to catch that (though we have little choice in C).

> My linux-next repair job:

OK, I've dropped these from my tree entirely to avoid more problems.

Can you take them? They're not really at home in my tree.


You can fetch them from

(You'll want to rename the last three something sane...)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at