From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756877AbYBGHSa (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 02:18:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753025AbYBGHSU (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 02:18:20 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.190]:36679 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752935AbYBGHST (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 02:18:19 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=XIyyWS9AfXl+dOLt0m3iqv7SxmRzDs9X6gfz0J8dQ6o28GS+WGW3DpvpsCV9xgmBVOIIaBAt7MybGRzDvE2q02t1wah/Cnor1M3swhbpgTNcycxMStD5BPxgvYuHPfomhBuPmgFYDAijeN33WWXoSXHhI02z0AJ4jmi730ZvvlA= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: sparse warning in cpufreq/powernow-k8.c From: Harvey Harrison To: Dave Jones Cc: Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , LKML In-Reply-To: <20080207043547.GA10078@codemonkey.org.uk> References: <1202342867.5820.89.camel@brick> <20080207043547.GA10078@codemonkey.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:18:16 -0800 Message-Id: <1202368696.22452.4.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 23:35 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:07:47PM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > Nested per_cpu accessors will shadow the internal __ptr variable. Use > > a temporary first_core variable. > > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c:1239:9: warning: symbol '__ptr' shadows an earlier one > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c:1239:9: originally declared here > > > > Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison > > Already fixed in cpufreq.git > > (Please also Cc me on cpufreq patches, thanks) > Sorry about that, I've been sending Ingo a bunch of x86 patches, didn't think to look further than that. Will keep in mind. Harvey