On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Xunlei Pang <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Xunlei Pang <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> thanks -john -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
