RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] sparc: fix a building error reported by kbuild

[Gonglei (Arei)]

Regards,
-Gonglei


> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-crypto-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:linux-crypto-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sam Ravnborg
> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 5:59 AM
> To: Gonglei (Arei)
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx;
> virtio-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Luonengjun; mst@xxxxxxxxxx;
> stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx; Huangweidong (C); Wubin (H); xin.zeng@xxxxxxxxx;
> Claudio Fontana; herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhoujian (jay, Euler); Hanweidong (Randy);
> arei.gonglei@xxxxxxxxxxx; cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx; Xuquan (Quan Xu);
> longpeng; Wanzongshun (Vincent); sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] sparc: fix a building error reported by kbuild
> 
> Hi Gonglei.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:37:08PM +0800, Gonglei wrote:
> > >> arch/sparc/include/asm/topology_64.h:44:44:
> > error: implicit declaration of function 'cpu_data'
> > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >
> >  #define topology_physical_package_id(cpu) (cpu_data(cpu).proc_id)
> >                                                ^
> > Let's include cpudata.h in topology_64.h.
> >
> > Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Suggested-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Gonglei <arei.gonglei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
Thanks.

> > ---
> >  arch/sparc/include/asm/topology_64.h | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/topology_64.h
> b/arch/sparc/include/asm/topology_64.h
> > index 7b4898a..2255430 100644
> > --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/topology_64.h
> > +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/topology_64.h
> > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> >
> >  #include <asm/mmzone.h>
> > +#include <asm/cpudata.h>
> 
> Nitpick - if you are going to resend this patch, 

It depends on the maintainer's thought. :)

> then please order the two includes in alphabetic order.
> 
> For two includes this looks like bikeshedding, but when we add
> more having them in a defined arder prevents merge conflicts.
> And makes it readable too.
> 
> We also sometimes order the includes with the longest lines topmost,
> and lines with the ame length are ordered alphabetically.
> But this is not seen so often.
> 

Regards,
-Gonglei