Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:01:46 +0100 | From | Russell King - ARM Linux <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if hotpluggable |
| |
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:21:05PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 06/10/2015 04:11 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >On 06/10/2015 03:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >>diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h > >>index 476092b86c6e..f2c4bf437ea7 100644 > >>--- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h > >>+++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h > >>@@ -13,7 +13,8 @@ extern void shmobile_smp_boot(void); > >> extern void shmobile_smp_sleep(void); > >> extern void shmobile_smp_hook(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long fn, > >> unsigned long arg); > >>-extern int shmobile_smp_cpu_disable(unsigned int cpu); > >>+extern bool shmobile_smp_cpu_can_disable(unsigned int cpu); > >>+extern void shmobile_invalidate_start(void); > >> > >>which your original patch did not include. The tree I'm applying to > >>(-rc1) contains: > >> > >>extern int shmobile_smp_cpu_disable(unsigned int cpu); > >>extern void shmobile_invalidate_start(void); > >> > >>there. Hence git quite rightfully declines to apply the patch. > >> > >Thanks. Fixed. > > > > Sorry I just noticed that you applied 8392/1 instead of 8392/2 from the > patch tracker. So shmobile_invalidate_start() came back.
Stephen,
8392/2 does _not_ apply:
$ pdb gitapply 8392/2 Patching 8392/2... git apply --whitespace=fix -p1 --index --check > /tmp/pdb.521 2>&1 exited with non-zero status: 256 error: patch failed: arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h:13 error: arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h: patch does not apply
However, 8392/1 does:
$ pdb gitapply 8392/1 Patching 8392/1... Checking in... [misc e28678d7b83a] ARM: 8392/1: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if hotpluggable Author: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> 10 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
This is because your patch 8392/2 has this hunk:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h index afc60bad6fd6..f2c4bf437ea7 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/common.h @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ extern void shmobile_smp_boot(void); extern void shmobile_smp_sleep(void); extern void shmobile_smp_hook(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long fn, unsigned long arg); -extern int shmobile_smp_cpu_disable(unsigned int cpu); +extern bool shmobile_smp_cpu_can_disable(unsigned int cpu); extern void shmobile_invalidate_start(void); extern void shmobile_boot_scu(void); extern void shmobile_smp_scu_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus); which states that shmobile_invalidate_start() must exist in the original code. In v4.2-rc1 and later kernels, there is no such line - here is v4.2-rc1 and later contains from line 13 onwards:
extern void shmobile_smp_sleep(void); extern void shmobile_smp_hook(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long fn, unsigned long arg); extern int shmobile_smp_cpu_disable(unsigned int cpu); extern void shmobile_boot_scu(void); extern void shmobile_smp_scu_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus); extern void shmobile_smp_scu_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu);
The difference between your two patches is relatively minor:
8392/1 _adds_ shmobile_invalidate_start() 8392/2 _requires_ that shmobile_invalidate_start() exist
If you wish me to apply a patch which _neither_ requires _nor_ adds the shmobile_invalidate_start() prototype, maybe you should send me a patch to that effect?
> I thought it would automatically supersede the previous patch but it > looks like it just sticks around?
It doesn't, because the /n thing was supposed to be for related patches rather than automatic superseding of previous patches.
-- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
| |