Hi Borislav,
Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
include/linux/topology.h between commit
11c0109a8c24b27fd6eff8c2c0ddca598675212d
("cpumask:remove-topology_core_siblings-and-topology_thread_siblings-core")
from the rr tree and commit 86aebc88b40884510c914ad71e81c8536a15052e
("topology: introduce cpu_node information for multi-node processors")
from the edac-amd tree.
The latter adds topology_cpu_node_siblings() which is not needed (the
former makes it clear that the _cpumask versions of these should be used
instead). I fixed it up and can carry the fix as necessary.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 03:41:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Borislav,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
> include/linux/topology.h between commit
> 11c0109a8c24b27fd6eff8c2c0ddca598675212d
> ("cpumask:remove-topology_core_siblings-and-topology_thread_siblings-core")
> from the rr tree and commit 86aebc88b40884510c914ad71e81c8536a15052e
> ("topology: introduce cpu_node information for multi-node processors")
> from the edac-amd tree.
>
> The latter adds topology_cpu_node_siblings() which is not needed (the
> former makes it clear that the _cpumask versions of these should be used
> instead). I fixed it up and can carry the fix as necessary.
Hi Stephen,
thanks for fixing that. Yep, the topology patches in the edac tree are
not final yet, I've added them to the mix only because edac depends on
the node_id functionality. I'll fix them up later against the rr stuff.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Hi Borislav,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:23:09 +0200 Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> thanks for fixing that. Yep, the topology patches in the edac tree are
> not final yet, I've added them to the mix only because edac depends on
> the node_id functionality. I'll fix them up later against the rr stuff.
Thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Hi Stephen,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:08:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > thanks for fixing that. Yep, the topology patches in the edac tree are
> > not final yet, I've added them to the mix only because edac depends on
> > the node_id functionality. I'll fix them up later against the rr stuff.
I rediffed the topology bits against
cpumask:remove-topology_core_siblings-and-topology_thread_siblings-core.
patch from Rusty's tree so we should be good to go.
Also, I'm carrying couple of patches that should go through the x86 tree
and depending on when they go in, I'll drop them from mine. Just wanted
to give you heads up here in case you start getting merge conflicts :).
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
System | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. M?nchen, Germany
Research | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni
Center | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis M?nchen
(OSRC) | Registergericht M?nchen, HRB Nr. 43632
Hi Boris,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:09:39 +0200 Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I rediffed the topology bits against
> cpumask:remove-topology_core_siblings-and-topology_thread_siblings-core.
> patch from Rusty's tree so we should be good to go.
Thanks.
> Also, I'm carrying couple of patches that should go through the x86 tree
> and depending on when they go in, I'll drop them from mine. Just wanted
> to give you heads up here in case you start getting merge conflicts :).
OK
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/