Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (objtool: warnings: 5)

On 2/9/21 2:59 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 01:39:03PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 2/8/21 1:21 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 11:30:59AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 2/8/21 4:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (objtool: warnings: 5)

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 01:39:03PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 2/8/21 1:21 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 11:30:59AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 2/8/21 4:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Changes since 20210205: > >>> > >> > >> on x86_64: >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (Warning at arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:390)

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 07:33:17PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 2/8/21 4:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20210205: > > > > on x86_64: > > Re: commit 1dba8a9538f5164eb8874eed4c7d6799a3c64963 > Author: Borislav Petkov > Date: Thu Jan 7 13:29:05 2021 +0100 >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (objtool: warnings: 5)

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 03:21:53PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > fs/select.o: warning: objtool: do_sys_poll()+0x8e9: call to > > __ubsan_handle_sub_overflow() with UACCESS enabled > > lib/iov_iter.o: warning: objtool: iovec_from_user.part.12()+0x2db: call to > > __ubsan_handle_add_overflow()

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (Warning at arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:390)

On 2/8/21 4:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20210205: > on x86_64: Re: commit 1dba8a9538f5164eb8874eed4c7d6799a3c64963 Author: Borislav Petkov Date: Thu Jan 7 13:29:05 2021 +0100 thermal: Move therm_throt there from x86/mce I am seeing this for CPU = 1,2,3:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (objtool: warnings: 5)

On 2/8/21 1:21 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 11:30:59AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 2/8/21 4:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20210205: >>> >> >> on x86_64: >> >> objtool warnings: (from 3 different randconfig builds) >> >>

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (objtool: warnings: 5)

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 11:30:59AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 2/8/21 4:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20210205: > > > > on x86_64: > > objtool warnings: (from 3 different randconfig builds) > > drivers/input/touchscreen/elants_i2c.o: warning: objtool: >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (objtool: warnings: 5)

On 2/8/21 4:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20210205: > on x86_64: objtool warnings: (from 3 different randconfig builds) drivers/input/touchscreen/elants_i2c.o: warning: objtool: elants_i2c_initialize() falls through to next function elants_i2c_resume() ~

linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

Hi all, Changes since 20210205: The xfs tree gained a conflict against the pidfd tree. The pm tree still had its failures so I used the version from next-20210204. The net-next tree lost its build failure. The amdgpu tree still had its build failure due to an interaction with the drm tree for

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (drivers/char/tpm/)

On 2/8/19 2:26 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20190207: > on i386 or x86_64: ERROR: "tpm_chip_stop" [drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.ko] undefined! ERROR: "tpm_chip_start" [drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.ko] undefined! Full randconfig file is attached. -- ~Randy # #

linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

Hi all, Changes since 20190207: The compiler-attributes tree lost its build failure. The mips tree gained a conflict against the mips-fixes tree. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The drm-misc tree gained a conflict against the drm tree and build failures so I used the

linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

Hi all, Please do not add any v4.17 material to your linux-next included branches until after v4.16-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20180207: The btrfs-kdave tree still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20180206. The vhost tree still had its build failure so I used the

linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

Hi all, Please do not add any v4.17 material to your linux-next included branches until after v4.16-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20180207: The btrfs-kdave tree still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20180206. The vhost tree still had its build failure so I used the

linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

Hi all, Changes since 20170207: The kspp tree gained conflicts against Linus' and the arm-soc, net-next and s390 trees. The kvm tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20170207. The gpio tree gained a build failure from an interaction with the tty tree. I applied a merge

linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

Hi all, Changes since 20170207: The kspp tree gained conflicts against Linus' and the arm-soc, net-next and s390 trees. The kvm tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20170207. The gpio tree gained a build failure from an interaction with the tty tree. I applied a merge

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (kernel/memremap.c, PRINTK, WARN)

On 02/07/16 21:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160205: > on x86_64: when CONFIG_PRINTK is not enabled: In file included from ../arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:35:0, from ../include/linux/bug.h:4, from ../include/linux/thread_info.h:11,

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

On 8 February 2016 at 15:43, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:26:11PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:17:56PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Changes since 20160205: >> >> My blackfin defconfig build fails with: >> >> kallsyms

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:26:11PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:17:56PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160205: > > My blackfin defconfig build fails with: > > kallsyms failure: relative symbol value 0xffa0 out of range in >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:17:56PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160205: My blackfin defconfig build fails with: kallsyms failure: relative symbol value 0xffa0 out of range in relative mode build log at:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 (kernel/memremap.c, PRINTK, WARN)

On 02/07/16 21:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160205: > on x86_64: when CONFIG_PRINTK is not enabled: In file included from ../arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:35:0, from ../include/linux/bug.h:4, from ../include/linux/thread_info.h:11,

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:17:56PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160205: My blackfin defconfig build fails with: kallsyms failure: relative symbol value 0xffa0 out of range in relative mode build log at:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:26:11PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:17:56PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160205: > > My blackfin defconfig build fails with: > > kallsyms failure: relative symbol value 0xffa0 out of range in >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

On 8 February 2016 at 15:43, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:26:11PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:17:56PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Changes since 20160205: >> >> My blackfin defconfig build

linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

Hi all, Changes since 20160205: The sunxi tree lost its build failure. The ext4 tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20160205. The tty tree gained a conflict against the tty.current tree. The gpio tree still had its build failure so I used the version from

linux-next: Tree for Feb 8

Hi all, Changes since 20160205: The sunxi tree lost its build failure. The ext4 tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20160205. The tty tree gained a conflict against the tty.current tree. The gpio tree still had its build failure so I used the version from

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On 8 February 2013 22:21, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> No, it did NOT apply cleanly and I merged your tree like this. Patch looks fine to me. >> To me it does not look like your changes from the patch you sent me >> are included? Yes they do. Check most of the changes from cpufreq.c which remove

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: Nah, I pulled in latest pm-next where this commit is new...

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> Nah, I pulled in latest pm-next where this commit is new... >>> >>> commit 8d5666f3456f2fd4a4e5dced228475b829851e53 >>> "ACPI:

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> Nah, I pulled in latest pm-next where this commit is new... >> >> commit 8d5666f3456f2fd4a4e5dced228475b829851e53 >> "ACPI: Unbind ACPI drv when probe failed" >> >> ...building with it. >>

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> "...some...changes..." is not very concrete :-). >> Which commit(s) caused this trouble? >> >> Is current (meanwhile updated?) linux-pm.git#linux-next good (didn't >> check last commit-ids

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > Nah, I pulled in latest pm-next where this commit is new... > > commit 8d5666f3456f2fd4a4e5dced228475b829851e53 > "ACPI: Unbind ACPI drv when probe failed" > > ...building with it. > > Same to you, say concretely which commit is fixing what...

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > "...some...changes..." is not very concrete :-). > Which commit(s) caused this trouble? > > Is current (meanwhile updated?) linux-pm.git#linux-next good (didn't > check last commit-ids of your tree from Next/ dir)? Attached patch would fix it

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 8 February 2013 18:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> >> [0.377473] [] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0 >>> >> [0.377479] [] ? acpi_cpufreq_target+0x2c0/0x2c0 >>> >> [

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On 8 February 2013 18:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> [0.377473] [] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0 >> >> [0.377479] [] ? acpi_cpufreq_target+0x2c0/0x2c0 >> >> [0.377483] [] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 >> >> [

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Hillf Danton wrote: >> > Hello Sedat >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM,

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

* Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Hillf Danton wrote: > > > Hello Sedat > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell > > >>

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Hillf Danton wrote: > > Hello Sedat > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell > >> wrote: > >> With today's Linux-Next I see

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Hillf Danton wrote: > Hello Sedat > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >> With today's Linux-Next I see this warning: >> >> [0.377442] [ cut here ] >> [

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

Hello Sedat On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > With today's Linux-Next I see this warning: > > [0.377442] [ cut here ] > [0.377452] WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130207: > > The sound-asoc tree gained a build failure so I used the version from > next-20130207. > > The watchdog tree gained a conflict against the mfd tree. > > I applied a patch to restore some config

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ idr fixes from akpm-tree ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130207: > > The sound-asoc tree gained a build failure so I used the version from > next-20130207. > > The watchdog tree gained a conflict against the mfd tree. > > I applied a patch to restore some config

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ idr fixes from akpm-tree ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130207: The sound-asoc tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20130207. The watchdog tree gained a conflict against the mfd tree. I applied a patch to restore some

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130207: The sound-asoc tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20130207. The watchdog tree gained a conflict against the mfd tree. I applied a patch to restore some

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

Hello Sedat On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: With today's Linux-Next I see this warning: [0.377442] [ cut here ] [0.377452] WARNING: at

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Hillf Danton dhi...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Sedat On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: With today's Linux-Next I see this warning: [

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Hillf Danton dhi...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Sedat On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

* Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Hillf Danton dhi...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Sedat On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Hillf Danton dhi...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Sedat On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On 8 February 2013 18:51, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: [0.377473] [8105a5ef] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0 [0.377479] [81579130] ? acpi_cpufreq_target+0x2c0/0x2c0 [0.377483]

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote: On 8 February 2013 18:51, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: [0.377473] [8105a5ef] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0 [0.377479]

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: ...some...changes... is not very concrete :-). Which commit(s) caused this trouble? Is current (meanwhile updated?) linux-pm.git#linux-next good (didn't check last commit-ids of your tree from Next/ dir)? Attached patch

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: Nah, I pulled in latest pm-next where this commit is new... commit 8d5666f3456f2fd4a4e5dced228475b829851e53 ACPI: Unbind ACPI drv when probe failed ...building with it. Same to you, say concretely which commit is

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: ...some...changes... is not very concrete :-). Which commit(s) caused this trouble? Is current (meanwhile updated?) linux-pm.git#linux-next good

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: Nah, I pulled in latest pm-next where this commit is new... commit 8d5666f3456f2fd4a4e5dced228475b829851e53 ACPI: Unbind ACPI drv when probe

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: Nah, I pulled in latest pm-next where this commit is new... commit

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for Feb 8 [ smp|cpufreq: WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245 smp_call_function_single ]

On 8 February 2013 22:21, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: No, it did NOT apply cleanly and I merged your tree like this. Patch looks fine to me. To me it does not look like your changes from the patch you sent me are included? Yes they do. Check most of the changes from cpufreq.c