Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:50:44 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2 #tj-percpu] x86: fix build breakage on voyage |
| |
* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > > > > > Impact: build fix > > > > > > x86_cpu_to_apicid and x86_bios_cpu_apicid aren't defined for voyage. > > > Earlier patch forgot to conditionalize early percpu clearing. Fix it. > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC > > > early_per_cpu_ptr(x86_cpu_to_apicid) = NULL; > > > early_per_cpu_ptr(x86_bios_cpu_apicid) = NULL; > > > +#endif > > > > That patch is not acceptable - it is ugly and it adds another set of > > #ifdefs to an already complex piece of code. > > > > As i explained it to James in recent threads, the clean and acceptable > > solution to this class of problems is to switch Voyager away from that > > fragile subarch code to proper generic x86 code. (just like we did it for > > other subarchitectures) > > > > There is nothing in Voyager that justifies special treatment in the area > > of x86 percpu code. > > > > This is one of the mails that explains the principles: > > > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0901.2/00954.html > > > > Or - if there's no time/interest in doing that, we can mark Voyager as > > CONFIG_BROKEN. > > Have you quite finished?
What is that supposed to mean?
Ingo
| |