[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100208003241.1155a7e5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 00:32:41 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix unused variable warning on UP (was: Re:
linux-next: tip tree build warning)
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:31:56 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Shouldn't put_cpu() take a (possibly dummy) `cpu' parameter, as
> returned by get_cpu()?
Yeah, that always seemed a bit screwy. Something like this...
--- a/include/linux/smp.h~a
+++ a/include/linux/smp.h
@@ -177,6 +177,15 @@ smp_call_function_any(const struct cpuma
#define put_cpu() preempt_enable()
/*
+ * This just exists to touch the `cpu' arg, to suppress unused var
+ * warnings
+ */
+static inline void put_cpu_nr(unsigned cpu)
+{
+ put_cpu();
+}
+
+/*
* Callback to arch code if there's nosmp or maxcpus=0 on the
* boot command line:
*/
_
--
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