[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120117162850.GA19561@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:28:50 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Sergei Trofimovich <slyich@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
gouders@...bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de,
Marcos Souza <marcos.mage@...il.com>, justinmattock@...il.com,
Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mce: fix warning messages about static struct mce_device
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 07:51:25AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 09:38:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
> > > index f35ce43..6aefb14 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
> > > @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static inline void enable_p5_mce(void) {}
> > >
> > > void mce_setup(struct mce *m);
> > > void mce_log(struct mce *m);
> > > -DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct device, mce_device);
> > > +extern struct device *mce_device[CONFIG_NR_CPUS];
> >
> > Minor nit, i don't think we have any other such [CONFIG_NR_CPUS]
> > pattern in the kernel.
> >
> > This should be something like:
> >
> > DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct device *, mce_device);
>
> That is what we used to have, but with just a static struct device. We
> really don't need this to be in the per-cpu area, a flat array should be
> just fine, why can't we use the CONFIG_NR_CPUS value? Should we use
> something else?
>
> > Or the pointer should be attached to the CPU info structure.
>
> Ok, I have no objection to that, do you want me to make a patch doing
> that, now that this is already in Linus's tree?
Wait, isn't that variable also used in head.S, so do you really want a
struct device * in there?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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