[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070208021900.GB17585@verge.net.au>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:19:03 +0900
From: Horms <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fastboot@...ts.osdl.org, "Zou, Nanhai" <nanhai.zou@...el.com>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid_aziz@...com>,
Adrian Bunk <trivial@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [IA64] Include kexec.h in arch/ia64/kernel/process.c
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:07:40AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > kexec.h is needed by arch/ia64/kernel/process.c so for the
> > declaration of kexec_disable_iosapic() which is used in
> > machine_shutdown().
>
> > +#include <asm/kexec.h>
>
> I merged this into your earlier change (moving machine_shutdown() into
> process.c). Linus pulled it last night.
Thanks
> I also added a "#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC" around the call to
> kexec_disable_iosapic() (because I first noticed that this was
> undefined when building non-KEXEC kernels). But perhaps it might have
> been better to #define an empty stub for this function inside kexec.h
> for the #ifndef CONFIG_KEXEC case?
Good catch :)
I think that #define in the process.c vs an empty stub inside
asm/kexec.h is really a style issue. I'm quite ok with things
the way they are. But If you are more comfortable with the stub
approach, I have no objections.
--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists