Re: [tip:x86/apic] x86: Fix out of order gsi -- add remap_ioapic_gsi_to_irq()
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [tip:x86/apic] x86: Fix out of order gsi -- add remap_ioapic_gsi_to_irq()
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:57:29 -0800
- Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx, garyhade@xxxxxxxxxx, iranna.ankad@xxxxxxxxxx, suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, trenn@xxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <4B8969E2.7000506@xxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <4B882182.4030205@xxxxxxxxxx> <tip-519d637a93116ffbcd50e9e3f2591f41584f372c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100227130113.GA18661@xxxxxxx> <4B8969E2.7000506@xxxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1
On 02/27/2010 10:52 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> Ingo found:
> | x86: Fix out of order gsi -- add remap_ioapic_gsi_to_irq()
> cause:
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c:1042: error: implicit declaration of function ?remap_ioapic_gsi_to_irq?
>
> actually when !CONFIG_ACPI, we have
> #define acpi_ioapic 0
>
> somehow we still get warning for
> #if (!0) {
> ...
> } else {
> ...
> remap_ioapic_gsi_to_irq...
> }
>
> gcc bug?
>
You're confusing #if and if ( ) { .. }.
Inside an if () { ... } clause the contents still needs to be correct,
even if it will get optimized out.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Stable Commits]
[Linux Stable Kernel]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Video &Media]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]