On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 09:53:25PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 12:55 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I screwed up my stable repo clone again :(, so the full build will take a
> >> bit.
> >>
> >> mips builds on on 3.4 with all patches applied now fail with:
> >> arch/mips/include/asm/page.h: Assembler messages:
> >> arch/mips/include/asm/page.h:178: Error: Unrecognized opcode `static inline
> >> int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)'
> >> arch/mips/include/asm/page.h:179: Error: junk at end of line, first
> >> unrecognized character is `{'
> >> arch/mips/include/asm/page.h:181: Error: Unrecognized opcode `extern
> >> unsigned long max_mapnr'
> >> arch/mips/include/asm/page.h:183: Error: Unrecognized opcode `return
> >> pfn>=ARCH_PFN_OFFSET&&pfn<max_mapnr'
> >> arch/mips/include/asm/page.h:184: Error: junk at end of line, first
> >> unrecognized character is `}'
> >>
> >> This is the error I referred to above. Reverting above pfn rework patch
> >> fixes that problem,
> >> so you might want to remove that patch from the patch queue for now.
> >
> > Perhaps this one got applied too soon?
> >
> > commit 730b8dfe016dd1e91f73d8d3e6724da91397171c
> > Author: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri Dec 28 15:18:02 2012 +0100
> >
> > MIPS: page.h: Remove now unnecessary #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ wrapper.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> Actually, you are on the right track, only in the opposite direction.
> The problem is that commit 8b9232141b changed
> #define pfn_valid ...
> to
> static inline pfn_valid()
> in arch/mips/include/asm/page.h. In the 3.4 kernel the file _is_
> still included from assembler code. This obviously doesn't work.
>
> Fix would be to surround the new static inline function with #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__.
> With this change, "mips allmodconfig" compiles with the 3.4 kernel.
> It should be a safe change, since the static inline will never be used
> from assembler code.
>
> Question is if that would be acceptable as back-port of 8b9232141b to 3.4.
> Greg, any comments ? If it is ok I can submit a back-port request with
> the modified patch to -stable. That would be one more build fixed,
> three to go (arm:allmodconfig, sparc32:defconfig, and sparc64:allmodconfig).
That sounds reasonable to me, as it is a valid fix, and I do know of
some MIPS people using 3.4 (although their versions all seem to be
heavily patched, perhaps for issues like this, I don't really know...)
So, feel free to send such a backport on to me.
thanks,
greg k-h
