[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4ZkueN0UHYu+mJCCgRfyYQLg91tMsccXo9u071fjvRcgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:45:56 +0200
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the mm tree
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 3:29 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Uros,
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:42:51 +0200 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Caused by commit
> > >
> > > 8e53757638ec ("err.h: add ERR_PTR_PCPU(), PTR_ERR_PCPU() and IS_ERR_PCPU() functions")
> > >
> > > Does include/linux/err.h really need to include asm/percpu.h? __percpu is
> > > defined in compiler_types.h which is included in every c code compile.
> >
> > Currently it is not needed, but with the proposed patch [1]
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240812115945.484051-4-ubizjak@gmail.com/
> >
> > that repurposes __percpu to also include percpu named address
> > qualifier, it will be needed, because per_cpu_qual will be defined in
> > include/asm-generic/percpu.h.
>
> How about putting these new functions in a new header file
> (err_percpu.h?) and including that where needed? Are there going to be
> many places that need these new functions?
Actually, there are only 4 files that need these functions, but some
of them mix generic and percpu versions. I
have to rethink this a bit (I considered asm/percpu.h as a "light"
header that can be included without much problem for every target, but
for powerpc, this is apparently not a case due to paca.h include) and
will definitely consider your suggestion.
Thanks,
Uros.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists