[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4890E539.6060905@am.sony.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:03:37 -0700
From: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Lennert Buytenhek <kernel@...tstofly.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Tigran Aivazian <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Sam Creasey <sammy@...my.net>, Greg Banks <gnb@....com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cpumask: Change cpumask_of_cpu to use cpumask_of_cpu_map
- build breakage
Mike Travis wrote:
> There was a later update that fixed this. You should have the following
> in include/linux/cpumask.h particularly line 291.
>
>
> e56b3bc7 (Linus Torvalds 2008-07-28 11:32:33 -0700 285) /*
> e56b3bc7 (Linus Torvalds 2008-07-28 11:32:33 -0700 286) * In cases where we take the address of the cpumask immediately,
> e56b3bc7 (Linus Torvalds 2008-07-28 11:32:33 -0700 287) * gcc optimizes it out (it's a constant) and there's no huge stack
> e56b3bc7 (Linus Torvalds 2008-07-28 11:32:33 -0700 288) * variable created:
> e56b3bc7 (Linus Torvalds 2008-07-28 11:32:33 -0700 289) */
> 1eddd657 (Stephen Rothwell 2008-07-29 16:07:37 +1000 290) #define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) (*get_cpu_mask(cpu))
> ^1da177e (Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 291)
>
> If 1eddd657 is there, would you send the config?
I was working out of a linux-2.6.27-rc1.tar.bz2 I got off of kernel.org,
so my working tree doesn't have the commit information.
However, comparing my source with the source above shows a difference.
In a Linus' 2.6 tree I downloaded outside my firewall, I have the following:
3dd730f2 (Stephen Rothwell 2008-07-29 16:07:37 +1000 290)#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) (*get_cpu_mask(cpu))
It doesn't appear to have the change you mention. But 3dd730f2 looks
promising:
commit 3dd730f2b49f101b90d283c3efc4e6cd826dd8f6
Author: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue Jul 29 16:07:37 2008 +1000
cpumask: statement expressions confuse some versions of gcc
when you take the address of the result. Noticed on a sparc64 compile
using a version 3.4.5 cross compiler.
kernel/time/tick-common.c: In function `tick_check_new_device':
kernel/time/tick-common.c:210: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
...
Just make it a regular expression.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
This looks like it's only 4 hours old. I'll give this a spin.
I don't see 1eddd657 anywhere in the commit log for cpumask.h
Is it in linux-next?
Thanks,
-- Tim
=============================
Tim Bird
Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum
Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Corporation of America
=============================
--
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