linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] m68k: Define NR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bf98fa37-461f-47ce-8d4c-bcb69f225a9c@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 07:04:14 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] m68k: Define NR_CPUS

On 9/24/24 00:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 9:34 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 24.09.24 01:56, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> v2: Instead of trying to make SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS depend on the
>>>       existence of NR_CPUS, define NR_CPUS for m68k.
>>
>> Okay, looks like we're cleaning up CONFIG_NR_CPUS for good.
>>
>> I'm back from conference travel tomorrow; I'll then throw in the following
>> into cross compilers and fixup any other arch that needs attention:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/threads.h b/include/linux/threads.h
>> index 1674a471b0b4..e31715e6746b 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/threads.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/threads.h
>> @@ -13,8 +13,7 @@
>>     * bit of memory.  Use nr_cpu_ids instead of this except for static bitmaps.
>>     */
>>    #ifndef CONFIG_NR_CPUS
>> -/* FIXME: This should be fixed in the arch's Kconfig */
>> -#define CONFIG_NR_CPUS 1
>> +#error "CONFIG_NR_CPUS not defined"
>>    #endif
>>
>>    /* Places which use this should consider cpumask_var_t. */
> 
> This is gonna trigger on almost all architectures if CONFIG_SMP=n.
> 

Guess that means that my patch won't work either. Any better ideas ?

Guenter