Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] time: Add the common weak version of update_persistent_clock()

[John Stultz]

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Xunlei Pang <xlpang@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The weak update_persistent_clock64() calls update_persistent_clock(),
> if the architecture defines an update_persistent_clock64() to replace
> and remove its update_persistent_clock() version, when building the
> kernel the linker will throw an undefined symbol error, that is, any
> arch that switches to update_persistent_clock64() will have this issue.
>
> To solve the issue, we add the common weak update_persistent_clock().

So I'm ok with taking this patch.  I'm also ok with taking the
dependent MN10300 patch if I can get acks from maintainers.

Or if the MN10300 maintainers would prefer, they can take both patches w/ my:
   Acked-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>

thanks
-john
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/