[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r14zvuxp.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 13:42:26 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: llvm@...ts.linux.dev, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [pdx86-platform-drivers-x86:review-hans 46/59]
kernel/stop_machine.c:638:35: error: call to undeclared function
'cpu_smt_mask'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function
declarations
On Thu, May 12 2022 at 11:53, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 5/12/22 11:24, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, May 12 2022 at 09:29, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>> kernel/stop_machine.c:638:35: error: call to undeclared function 'cpu_smt_mask'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>> const struct cpumask *smt_mask = cpu_smt_mask(cpu);
>>
>> This warning with W=1 is not the worst of the problems.
>>
>> The build will simply fail for CONFIG_SMP=y && CONFIG_SCHED_SMT=n
>> because cpu_smt_mask() cannot be resolved.
>>
>> The other issue is CONFIG_SMP=n. This will fail to build the IFS driver
>> because stop_core_cpuslocked() is not available for SMP=n.
>
> The IFS Kconfig already depends on SMP :
>
> config INTEL_IFS
> tristate "Intel In Field Scan"
> depends on X86 && 64BIT && SMP
> select INTEL_IFS_DEVICE
> help
> Enable ...
>
>
> So I don't think we need the non-SMP implementation inside
> include/linux/stop_machine.h, we only need the #ifdef you
> suggest in kernel/stop_machine.c ?
For the case at hand that's sufficient.
> I think it is best to just squash this into the original
> patch, do you agree ?
Yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists