On 01/19/2014 05:00 PM, Len Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
>> failed like this:
>>
>> arch/x86/kernel/process.c: In function 'mwait_idle':
>> /scratch/sfr/next/arch/x86/kernel/process.c:434:3: error: implicit declaration of function '__monitor' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>> __monitor((void *)¤t_thread_info()->flags, 0, 0);
>> ^
>> arch/x86/kernel/process.c:437:4: error: implicit declaration of function '__sti_mwait' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>> __sti_mwait(0, 0);
>> ^
>>
>> Caused by commit 16824255394f ("x86, acpi, idle: Restructure the mwait
>> idle routines") interacting with commit 7760518cce95 ("x86 idle: restore
>> mwait_idle()") from the idle tree.
>>
>> I am not sure how to fix this so I just reverted the idle tree commit for
>> now (since it reverted cleanly). Please let me know if there is a better
>> solution.
>
> IMO, a regression fix (restore mwait_idle()) is more important than a clean up
> (restructure mwait routines), and the clean-up should take a back seat;
> in -tip, in -next, upstream, and in -stable.
>
> Also, I'm wondering if that clean-up went too far -- as not all users of mwait
> are necessarily under the same conditions...
>
Sounds like a NAK to me, in which case that bit should probably be
deferred and reintroduced after fixing via the idle tree?
-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
