On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:27:08AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 14:02 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Some nits below. > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Index: linux-2.6.21-rt9/include/linux/rcupreempt.h > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6.21-rt9.orig/include/linux/rcupreempt.h > > > +++ linux-2.6.21-rt9/include/linux/rcupreempt.h > > > @@ -63,7 +63,9 @@ extern void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, > > > extern void rcu_restart_cpu(int cpu); > > > extern long rcu_batches_completed(void); > > > > > > -extern void rcu_process_callbacks(unsigned long unused); > > > +struct softirq_action; > > > + > > > +extern void rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused); > > > > I don't understand why the above is needed -- interrupt.h is included, > > and the use of rcu_process_callbacks() follows the definition. > > > > > #endif /* __KERNEL__ */ > > > #endif /* __LINUX_RCUPREEMPT_H */ > > The first time I compiled it, I forgot the ';' and got a warning there. > But the warning also included "declaring structure softirq_action in > prototype", so I fixed both the ';' and added the struct. I can try > compile without it. But I also know that adding #include <interrupt.h> > in rcupreempt.h caused issues too. If I leave out both the "struct softirq_action" and the rcu_process_callbacks() declaration,, it compiles for me. So I guess the rcu_process_callbacks() should be declared static... Thanx, Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
