[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874klz9vk9.fsf@kokedama.swc.toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 10:18:46 +0900
From: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@...hiba.co.jp>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 02:36:46PM +0900, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
>> > index 2531de49f56c..438ed9eff6d0 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
>> > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>> > // Copyright (C) 2018, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
>> >
>> > #include <linux/cper.h>
>> > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>
>> Did you mean to include <asm/acpi.h>?
>
> Why?
Because arch_apei_report_x86_error() used in the patch is defined
there. The indirect include works but pulls in additional definitions
not needed by the patch.
Do you prefer the more generic include?
Thanks,
Punit
Powered by blists - more mailing lists