* KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > actually, this breaks the build on !SPARSEIRQ because we will use that
> >> > class in the non-sparseirq case. So we've converted a build warning to
> >> > a build failure ;-)
> >>
> >> Please give me your .config and tell me your arch. my ia64 box (ia64 is
> >> !SPARSEIRQ) can build the akpm patch.
> >
> > The expected build failure is obvious from reading the code:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> > void early_init_irq_lock_class(void)
> > {
> > #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
> > struct irq_desc *desc;
> > int i;
> >
> > for_each_irq_desc(i, desc) {
> > if (!desc)
> > continue;
> >
> > lockdep_set_class(&desc->lock, &irq_desc_lock_class);
> >
> > Note that it's an #ifndef sparseirq, not an #ifdef sparseirq condition.
>
> I see. thanks.
> It seems my first proposal is better.
>
> or, following #ifdef ?
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ) || defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS)
>
> /*
> * lockdep: we want to handle all irq_desc locks as a single lock-class:
> */
> static struct lock_class_key irq_desc_lock_class;
instead of increasing the #ifdef jungle, how about removing some? For
example is this distinction:
> > #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
really needed? We should use symmetric lock class annotations, regardless
of how irq_desc[] is laid out.
Ingo
--
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
