[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100515202829.GA7645@nowhere>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 22:28:32 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:37:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the mess. I think the following patch
> > cleans it up. The last piece deals with the sparc
> > mess, the other two pieces should deal with the x86
> > fallout.
>
> This patch breaks x86:
>
> arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `show_stack_log_lvl':
> (.text+0xc2c0): undefined reference to `touch_nmi_watchdog'
> arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `print_trace_address':
> dumpstack.c:(.text+0xd893): undefined reference to `touch_nmi_watchdog'
> arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `mce_timed_out':
> mce.c:(.text+0x20008): undefined reference to `touch_nmi_watchdog'
> arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `enable_lapic_nmi_watchdog':
> (.text+0x261f2): undefined reference to `touch_nmi_watchdog'
>
> CONFIG_CLOCKSOURCE_WATCHDOG=y
> CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS_NMI=y
> CONFIG_IPMI_WATCHDOG=m
> CONFIG_WATCHDOG=y
> CONFIG_WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT=y
> # CONFIG_SOFT_WATCHDOG is not set
> CONFIG_HP_WATCHDOG=y
> CONFIG_SBC_EPX_C3_WATCHDOG=m
> # CONFIG_PCIPCWATCHDOG is not set
> # CONFIG_USBPCWATCHDOG is not set
> CONFIG_HAVE_FTRACE_NMI_ENTER=y
> CONFIG_FTRACE_NMI_ENTER=y
>
> I'd _strongly_ suggest to simplify the code. There's
> a few things that could be done to that end:
>
> - just have a single watchdog option and dont split
> the soft-dog from the hard-dog.
This is what we have, ie: CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR
But we need to keep the softlockup detection out of
the perf dependency. This is what we had previously.
And more especially softlockup detection doesn't need
perf.
> - provide a smooth pathway for architectures that
> have an NMI watchdog right now. Dont overlap their
> symbols for example.
Agreed.
> ... and similar measures.
And I add: remove the old nmi watchdog code from x86, for good.
I'm working on it.
--
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