On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 19:32 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 04/20/2015 06:54 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 12:50 -0400, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:44:31 -0700 > >> > >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:25:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > >>>> From: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:17:21 -0700 > >>>> > >>>>> The debug option is intended for all _other_ architectures, to > >>>>> ensure that changes made for those don't break alpha/s390 > >>>>> builds. alpha/s390 have ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU and don't need the > >>>>> debug option. > >>>> > >>>> Ironically this would not create a build failure for the architectures > >>>> where this matters, because only powerpc has the like named percpu > >>>> symbol. > >>>> > >>>> So it's not really meeting the stated objective in this case. > >>> > >>> Yes, that is correct; it can only find problems in non-architecture > >>> code, and on the downside produces false positives and thus build errors > >>> like this one. > >>> > >>> Which makes the fix a bit philosophical. Rename iommu_pool_hash in > >>> iommu-common, or drop DEBUG_FORCE_WEAK_PER_CPU. I would rename > >>> iommu_pool_hash, but that is just me. Ultimately, I don't really > >>> care one way or another, as long as the problem gets fixed. > >> > >> If nightly builds of s390 and alpha, the two platforms where this > >> matters, are being done as reported in this thread, then I really > >> don't see the value in DEBUG_FORCE_WEAK_PER_CPU. > > Me not either, but, as you say, that is a different discussion. > > > > > We do an s390 allmodconfig for every linux-next release: > > > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/target/573/ > > > > And also for Linus' tree: > > > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/target/568/ > > > > We don't have alpha allmodconfig enabled, though we could, but we do build the > > defconfig: > > > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/target/2499/ > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/target/2494/ > > I cover alpha:allmodconfig in my builds for -next, mainline, as well as all > kernel.org stable releases and release candidates. This discussion is a good > argument for enabling s390:allmodconfig as well. > > > So I think that should be sufficient to catch any percpus that are introduced > > in generic code with the same name as s390/alpha variables. > > Yes, but unfortunately only after the fact, though I don't see a means > to avoid that. Yeah after the merge into linux-next, which I think is probably good enough for something like this. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
