Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wonder if this is related to rc6's oops? > gcc 4.0.3 > > CC [M] arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.o > arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.c: In function > 'centrino_target': > include/linux/bitmap.h:170: warning: 'online_policy_cpus.bits[0]' is used > uninitialized in this function > CC [M] arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.o > arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: In function > 'acpi_cpufreq_target': > include/linux/bitmap.h:170: warning: 'online_policy_cpus.bits[0]' is used > uninitialized in this function
Well conceivably. That warning is a consequence of my quick hack to make the ACPI tree compile on uniprocessor. ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.16-rc6/2.6.16-rc6-mm2/broken-out/git-acpi-up-fix.patch My patch is, as the compiler points out, wrong. I've sent that patch two or three times to the APCI maintainers, to the ACPI mailing list and to the author of the original buggy patch. The response thus far has been dead silence. IOW, despite my efforts, the ACPI tree has been in a non-compiling state on uniprocessor since February 11. This is pathetic. People are trying to get things done here and ACPI is getting in the way. But *need* to get the ACPI development tree out for people to test else we'll never be able to take another ACPI update into mainline. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
