Prarit Bhargava wrote: [Fri Jul 28 2006, 10:24:53AM EDT]
> +config MD_RAID5_IA64
> + bool "RAID 5 support for IA64"
> + depends on MD_RAID456 && IA64
> + default y
> + ---help---
> + Say "Y" if you plan on using RAID5 in IA64
> +
This looks wrong to me. If somebody selects CONFIG_RAID456 on ia64
then clearly they're intending to use it on ia64.
One option would be to remove the quoted description ("RAID 5 support
for IA64") then it wouldn't show up in the menu and would be
automatically selected if the conditions were met. But it's still
adding an arch-specific depend in a generic Kconfig, so I don't think
it's the right answer.
> diff -urNp linux-2.6.17.ia64.orig/arch/ia64/kernel/ia64_ksyms.c linux-2.6.17.ia64/arch/ia64/kernel/ia64_ksyms.c
> --- linux-2.6.17.ia64.orig/arch/ia64/kernel/ia64_ksyms.c 2006-07-27 09:20:01.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.17.ia64/arch/ia64/kernel/ia64_ksyms.c 2006-07-27 14:51:42.000000000 -0400
> @@ -67,7 +68,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__udivdi3);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__moddi3);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__umoddi3);
>
> -#if defined(CONFIG_MD_RAID5) || defined(CONFIG_MD_RAID5_MODULE)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MD_RAID5_IA64
> extern void xor_ia64_2(void);
> extern void xor_ia64_3(void);
> extern void xor_ia64_4(void);
> diff -urNp linux-2.6.17.ia64.orig/arch/ia64/lib/Makefile linux-2.6.17.ia64/arch/ia64/lib/Makefile
> --- linux-2.6.17.ia64.orig/arch/ia64/lib/Makefile 2006-07-27 09:20:01.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.17.ia64/arch/ia64/lib/Makefile 2006-07-27 14:51:19.000000000 -0400
> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ lib-y := __divsi3.o __udivsi3.o __modsi3
> lib-$(CONFIG_ITANIUM) += copy_page.o copy_user.o memcpy.o
> lib-$(CONFIG_MCKINLEY) += copy_page_mck.o memcpy_mck.o
> lib-$(CONFIG_PERFMON) += carta_random.o
> -lib-$(CONFIG_MD_RAID5) += xor.o
> +lib-$(CONFIG_MD_RAID5_IA64) += xor.o
>
> AFLAGS___divdi3.o =
> AFLAGS___udivdi3.o = -DUNSIGNED
This looks wrong too. Since this is in arch/ia64, there's should be
no need to have an arch-specific lib-$(CONFIG_MD_RAID5_IA64), the old
invocation should work fine.
Could you explain what is wrong presently so we can find the right
solution?
Thanks,
Aron
Attachment:
pgpZ0HCElsz7M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
