Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:31:16 -0800 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm] x86_64 UP needs smp_call_function_single |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:11:40 -0800 > Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:00:00 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 17:45 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> No, I think this patch is right - the declaration of the CONFIG_SMP >>>> smp_call_function_single() is in linux/smp.h so the !CONFIG_SMP >>>> declaration >>>> or definition should be there too. >>>> >>>> It's still buggy though. It should disable local interrupts around >>>> the >>>> call to match the SMP version. I'll fix that separately. >>> hm, didnt i send an updated patch for that already? See the patch below, >>> from many days ago. I sent it after the tsc-sync-rewrite patch. >> Hi Ingo, >> >> Has there been a patch for this one? (UP again, not SMP) >> >> drivers/input/ff-memless.c:384: warning: implicit declaration of function 'local_bh_disable' >> drivers/input/ff-memless.c:393: warning: implicit declaration of function 'local_bh_enable' >> >> Thanks, >> --- >> ~Randy >> config: http://oss.oracle.com/~rdunlap/configs/config-input-up-header > > eww.. I guess linux/spinlock.h should really include linux/interrupt.h. > But interrupt.h includes stuff like sched.h which will want spinlock.h. > > This, maybe?
Looks good. I had already tried (and failed) adding interrupt.h to spinlock.h -- what a mess.
-- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |