Re: linux-next: voyager tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi James,

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:18:38 -0500 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks for finding this.  The fix looks to be a dummy definition of this
> function for x86_64.  The final fix (which has been under discussion)
> will be the elimination of safe_smp_processor_id() altogether.
> 
> I've merged this into the
> 
> [VOYAGER] x86: add {safe,hard}_smp_processor_id to smp_ops
> 
> patch and respun the tree (and built it with an x86-64 cross compiler),
> so it should be safe to include next time around

Thanks.  We will see how we do (later) in the morning.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature