Re: [PATCH] x86: order functions in cpu/common.c and cpu/common_64.c

[Yinghai Lu]

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > i've pushed out the broken tree into tip/tmp.master.broken (havent
>> > updated tip/master with the breakage). I've removed the broken
>> > printk in kernel/resource.c that Andrew found, see commit
>> > 06e44f6af324 - so that's not the cause.
>>
>> i've double checked that 06e44f6af324 is applied. I'll bisect this.
>
> bisection came up with:
>
>  # good: [8bfd9710] Merge branch 'x86/xsave'
>  # bad:  [06e44f6a] IO resources: fix/remove printk
>  # good: [282a5f84] Merge branch 'irq/sparseirq'
>  # bad:  [a0854a46] x86: make 32bit support show_msr like 64 bit
>  # good: [5031088d] x86: delay early cpu initialization until cpuid is
>  # good: [9d31d35b] x86: order functions in cpu/common.c and cpu/commo
>  # bad:  [10a434fc] x86: remove cpu_vendor_dev
>
> | 10a434fcb23a57c385177a0086955fae01003f64 is first bad commit
> | commit 10a434fcb23a57c385177a0086955fae01003f64
> | Author: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
> | Date:   Thu Sep 4 21:09:45 2008 +0200
> |
> |     x86: remove cpu_vendor_dev
>
> and the thing is, 10a434fc is way too big:
>
> | 15 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
>
> and it's not obvious at first (neither at second) sight what the problem
> is. You really need to start doing much smaller patches for such
> critical/hard-to-debug code areas.
>
could be alignment again...

YH
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/