Re: [build failure] Re: BKL: remove extraneous #include<smp_lock.h>

[Randy Dunlap]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:02:05 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > How painful would it be to move lock_depth into thread_struct? I guess
> > > we don't have anything that cares about structure offsets in assembly
> > > for that thing.  I should just try.
> > 
> > Gaah, the only generic field there is the restart_block, so we'd have
> > to hide it there, or then add it to each architecture. So scratch
> > that.
> > 
> > I guess this is the simplest approach.
> > 
> >                          Linus
> 
> >  include/linux/hardirq.h |    1 +
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h
> > index 714da7e..32f9fd6 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/hardirq.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/hardirq.h
> > @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@
> >  #define in_nmi()	(preempt_count() & NMI_MASK)
> >  
> >  #if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) && defined(CONFIG_BKL)
> > +# include <linux/sched.h>
> >  # define PREEMPT_INATOMIC_BASE (current->lock_depth >= 0)
> >  #else
> >  # define PREEMPT_INATOMIC_BASE 0
> 
> Hey, i will quote this patch in the future, when you flame me about some ugly 
> compatibility hack ;-)
> 
> I guess it will all go away with CONFIG_BKL so we dont really care so deeply. I'll 
> test it.


Ingo, I built it with your posted config file.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/