[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YK3vrIB7cWop+UIW@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 08:50:20 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fixmap: use CONFIG_NR_CPUS instead of NR_CPUS
* Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> Use CONFIG_NR_CPUS instead of NR_CPUS for an enum entry item.
> (Alternatively, #include <linux/threads.h> unconditionally instead of
> conditionally.)
>
> This fixes 100+ build errors like so:
>
> In file included from ../include/asm-generic/early_ioremap.h:6:0,
> from ./arch/x86/include/generated/asm/early_ioremap.h:1,
> from ../arch/x86/include/asm/io.h:44,
> from ../include/linux/io.h:13,
> from ../mm/early_ioremap.c:13:
> ../arch/x86/include/asm/fixmap.h:103:48: error: ‘NR_CPUS’ undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean ‘NR_OPEN’?
> FIX_KMAP_END = FIX_KMAP_BEGIN + (KM_MAX_IDX * NR_CPUS) - 1,
>
> Fixes: e972c2511967 ("mm/early_ioremap: add prototype for early_memremap_pgprot_adjust")
I believe this patch is in the -mm tree, not the x86 tree.
> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ enum fixed_addresses {
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_KMAP_LOCAL
> FIX_KMAP_BEGIN, /* reserved pte's for temporary kernel mappings */
> - FIX_KMAP_END = FIX_KMAP_BEGIN + (KM_MAX_IDX * NR_CPUS) - 1,
> + FIX_KMAP_END = FIX_KMAP_BEGIN + (KM_MAX_IDX * CONFIG_NR_CPUS) - 1,
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MMCONFIG
> FIX_PCIE_MCFG,
> #endif
Please resolve this bug properly:
- Don't sprinkle low level headers with random CONFIG_NR_CPUS conversions.
- <asm/io.h> currently includes <asm/early_ioremap.h>, but this seems
unjustified.
- Once early_ioremap.h is gone from io.h, it's potentially possible to
include <linux/threads.h>. More work to resolve dependencies might be
needed though.
Frankly, I'd prefer if such a low level header dependencies change came in
via the x86 tree so we can properly review it, test it, and keep it
working. Right now I can only guess what is needed here...
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists