[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA3E34C0108@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:24:22 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH -next] ia64/sn: fix percpu warnings
> Umm... the correct correct declaration and definition would be
>
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(short [MAX_COMPACT_NODES], __sn_cnodeide_to_nasid);
>
> and
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(short [MAX_COMPACT_NODES], __sn_cnodeide_to_nasid);
>
> So that the first part contains full type. Doing it the other way
> might cause problems if the __weak trick is turned on.
That's what Randy's patch uses ... but doing it the "right" way gives
me the "has no CRC!" warning.
This seems to be a feature of exported per cpu arrays. If I hack
up a driver to make use of softirq_work_list, I see a similar
no CRC warning for it.
Is this problem in the ia64 tool chain[1]? Or do other architectures
have problems with exported per cpu arrays?
-Tony
[1] My default toolchain is uses gcc 4.1.2. But 4.4.1 has the same
behavior.
--
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