2008/10/23 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Frédéric 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 */ > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Ok, I will send a patch to correct in this way. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
