[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090114200839.GA1556@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:08:39 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Robert Reif <reif@...thlink.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sparc32 compile error: redefinition of ‘smp_call_function_single’
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:25:44AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:32:55 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:59:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:38:01 -0500 Robert Reif <reif@...thlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This worked:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
> > > > index 2aebc4c..368227d 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/kernel/Makefile
> > > > @@ -43,8 +43,10 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_ISA_DMA) += dma.o
> > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS),y)
> > > > obj-y += smp.o
> > > > else
> > > > +ifneq ($(CONFIG_SMP),y)
> > > > obj-y += up.o
> > > > endif
> > > > +endif
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += spinlock.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK) += spinlock.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) += spinlock.o
> > >
> > > This all can be simplified, can't it?
> > >
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS) += smp.o
> > > ifneq ($(CONFIG_SMP),y)
> > > obj-y += up.o
> > > endif
> > >
> > > (someone please check my homework - I don't have a good track
> > > record here ;))
> >
> > Looks correct. We pull in smp.o only for SPARC64 AND SMP
>
> SPARC64=n and SMP, actually (assuming sparc64 is the only
> USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS=n arch)
>
> > But I find the next lines distastefull in a Makefile:
> > > ifneq ($(CONFIG_SMP),y)
> > > obj-y += up.o
> > > endif
>
> me too.
>
> > I would prefer a small Kconfig helper symbol:
> >
> > config SPARC_UP
> > def_bool y
> > depends on !SMP
> >
> > And then we would do the Makefile bits like this:
> > obj-$(CONFIG_SPARC_UP) += up.o
>
> eek. Mentioning sparc explicitly in kernel/Makefile is badder.
Ups - I my horry I did not notice this was _taht_ kernel/Makefile.
>
> we could remove zillions of these conditionals if something somewhere
> were to generate negated symbols for us. Say, when kbuild sees
> CONFIG_SMP=y, it will generate another symbol: NOT_CONFIG_SMP=y. So
> then we can do
>
> obj-$NOT_CONFIG_SMP += up.o
>
> Or is that too cheesy?
If we can remove a zillion lines - then no.
But maybe the actual figure is a bit less :-)
Sam
--
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