On 12/16/2009 01:58 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > >> >> --- linux-next-20091216.orig/arch/x86/lib/Makefile >> +++ linux-next-20091216/arch/x86/lib/Makefile >> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ $(obj)/inat.o: $(obj)/inat-tables.c >> >> clean-files := inat-tables.c >> >> -obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) := msr.o >> +obj-$(CONFIG_X86_MSR) := msr.o > > however, CONFIG_X86_MSR is the x86 MSR access module and the <lib/msr.c> > is the library of MSR accessing functions which is always in. So this > should be unconditional as in my version or Peter might have a better > idea...? > Both are wrong. CONFIG_X86_MSR has nothing at all to do with this and is a complete red herring. Involving CONFIG_X86_MSR is just totally bogus. Including msr.o unconditionally is also wrong, but for a more subtle reason: msr.c is written to contain functions that apply to SMP only; with UP replacement stubs written as inlines in arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h. Putting most of the file inside a big #ifdef of course works, but is a pretty bad case of beating it with the ugly stick. My preference would be to move the SMP-specific functions to a new file, call it msr-smp.c, and then leave only the functions that should be included unconditionally in msr.c (I believe it is cleaner to do it that way than the opposite.) -hpa -- 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
