On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 19:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> arch/x86/xen/smp.c:478: error: 'apic_safe_smp_processor_id' undeclared here (not in a function)
> arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:219: error: 'apic_safe_smp_processor_id' undeclared here (not in a function)
>
> Caused by commit 6a6df48477c1959b1baa78ecabba72548d362f60 ("[VOYAGER]
> x86: add {safe,hard}_smp_processor_id to smp_ops").
>
> I have dropped the voyager tree for today.
Thanks for finding this. The fix looks to be a dummy definition of this
function for x86_64. The final fix (which has been under discussion)
will be the elimination of safe_smp_processor_id() altogether.
I've merged this into the
[VOYAGER] x86: add {safe,hard}_smp_processor_id to smp_ops
patch and respun the tree (and built it with an x86-64 cross compiler),
so it should be safe to include next time around
Thanks,
James
---
diff -u b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
--- b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
@@ -177,6 +177,15 @@
ti->cpu; \
})
#define safe_smp_processor_id() smp_processor_id()
+/*
+ * dummy function for smp_ops.safe_smp_processor_id() which is unused
+ * on x86_64. This will also break the build if the definition leaks
+ * outside of the guards in kernel/apic/ipi.c on x86_64
+ */
+static inline int apic_safe_smp_processor_id(void)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
#endif
--
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
