On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 08:00:19PM -0500, 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.
It was part of that other regression fix, the 50+ watt thingy for your
broken EX chips.
It was also written much earlier and widely mailed and published before
you did the core2 thing.
> Also, I'm wondering if that clean-up went too far -- as not all users of mwait
> are necessarily under the same conditions...
Then make them so. The fact was that most of the mwait idle sites
were bloody broken. And the single mwait_idle_with_hints() function
presents a single nice function that does all the required magics.
--
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
