Re: [tip:x86/urgent] ix86: Fix build failure when !CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >>> On 29.10.14 at 08:50, <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> >>> On 28.10.14 at 12:18, <tipbot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Commit-ID:  a425cf83e39f99a70168c184e79cea8c67ba7c12
> >> > Gitweb:     
> > http://git.kernel.org/tip/a425cf83e39f99a70168c184e79cea8c67ba7c12 
> >> > Author:     Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> >> > AuthorDate: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:44:24 +0100
> >> > Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > CommitDate: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:01:09 +0100
> >> > 
> >> > ix86: Fix build failure when !CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC
> >> > 
> >> > mp_should_keep_irq() isn't really IO-APIC related, and
> >> > considering that it's being used solely in arch/x86/pci/ likely
> >> > both declaration and definition got misplaced even without
> >> > considering the resulting build failure:
> >> > 
> >> >   .../arch/x86/pci/irq.c: In function âpirq_disable_irqâ:
> >> >   .../arch/x86/pci/irq.c:1259: error: implicit declaration of function 
> >> > âmp_should_keep_irqâ
> >> >   make[3]: *** [arch/x86/pci/irq.o] Error 1
> >> > 
> >> > Move them to better places.
> >> 
> >> Ingo,
> >> 
> >> the build failure had got addressed by a different patch 
> >> already, albeit that patch seems far from ideal to me. I.e. I 
> >> still think cleanup along the lines of the patch here is 
> >> desirable, but I need to submit one that actually builds (the 
> >> build failure the test robot encountered is a direct result of 
> >> the clash between the two patches). I have that patch ready, 
> >> but didn't want to submit before I got around to test it with 
> >> 3.18-rc.
> > 
> > Okay, I've removed it from x86/urgent. Note that it also 
> > generated this build failure:
> > 
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/io_apic.h:240:20: error: static declaration of 
> > âmp_should_keep_irqâ follows non-static declaration
> 
> Right - that's the one I was referring to above (actually iirc there
> are two relatively similar build failures resulting from the conflict).

Okay. I didn't mind your cleanup, so please follow it up and I'll 
apply it.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/