On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Fr�ric Weisbecker wrote: > 2008/10/23 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > If kernel/trace/trace.c calls irqs_disabled_flags(), it should include > > the include that defines irqs_disabled_flags(). You should not add it to > > some other random include. > > > > It's also happening on m68k: > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/50641/ > > The fact is that other archs include this header into their > asm/system.h. It seems that's because > they need some non-traced irq_save/restore . > I wanted to stay in the same approach because future use of > raw_local_irq could be used elsewhere > and seem to work perfectly whithout adding special headers on most > arch. But there will be some > bug report for each future use of these functions for alpha.... (and > even m68k as it seems). > > What do you think? Should I let this patch as is or send a new one > (and one other for m68k). kernel/trace/trace.c needs to include at least <linux/irqflags.h>, as that's where irqs_disabled_flags() is defined. If there are still other issues with the raw_local_irq(), IMHO they should be fixed separately. Hmm, what's this doing in <linux/irqflags.h>: | #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT | ... | #endif /* CONFIG_X86 */ ^^^^^^^^^^ Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
