Hello,
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 01:10:27PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (sparc32 defconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> In file included from arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h:455,
> from arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable.h:6,
> from include/linux/mm.h:41,
> from arch/sparc/kernel/process_32.c:17:
> include/asm-generic/pgtable.h: In function 'pmdp_get_and_clear':
> include/asm-generic/pgtable.h:96: error: implicit declaration of function '__pmd'
> include/asm-generic/pgtable.h:96: error: incompatible types when returning type 'int' but 'pmd_t' was expected
>
> and *lots* more.
>
> Caused by commit e2cda322648122dc400c85ada80eaddbc612ef6a ("thp: add pmd
> mangling generic functions"). This has already been reported broken in
> other architectures as well.
>
> I have just left it for today.
See arch/sparc/include/asm/page_32.h
/* #define __pmd(x) ((pmd_t) { (x) } ) */ /* XXX procedure with loop */
/* #define __pmd(x) (x) */ /* XXX later */
Not sure why __pmd is commented out on sparc32 (it isn't in sparc64,
this is why sparc looked like building ok in a earlier report).
Removing those two comments at first glance should fix the build, but
I don't understand the comment, so I'm unsure if it's safe and what
"XXX later" means. Overall this __pmd(0) thing is just a fake. We've
to return some dummy pmd_t structure to build, because the function
returns a pmd_t, there's a BUG() before __pmd is evaluated, but I
didn't think of a better way yet than to return __pmd(0).
static inline pmd_t pmdp_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct *mm,
unsigned long
address,
pmd_t *pmdp)
{
BUG();
return __pmd(0);
}
--
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
