lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: next-20081030: voyager compile busted
From
Date
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 21:52 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 21:03 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > On i386-voyager:
> > >
> > > Using /src/linux-1 as source for kernel
> > > GEN /src/build/i386-voyager/Makefile
> > > CHK include/linux/version.h
> > > CHK include/linux/utsrelease.h
> > > SYMLINK include/asm -> include/asm-x86
> > > CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
> > > CHK include/linux/compile.h
> > > CC arch/x86/kernel/tsc.o
> > > arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c: In function 'unsynchronized_tsc':
> > > arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c:763: error: implicit declaration of function 'apic_is_clustered_box'
> > > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/tsc.o] Error 1
> > > CC arch/x86/kernel/cpu/addon_cpuid_features.o
> > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/addon_cpuid_features.c: In function 'detect_extended_topology':
> > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/addon_cpuid_features.c:120: error: implicit declaration of function 'phys_pkg_id'
> > > make[3]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/cpu/addon_cpuid_features.o] Error 1
> > > make[3]: Target `__build' not remade because of errors.
> > > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/cpu] Error 2
> > > make[2]: Target `__build' not remade because of errors.
> > > make[1]: *** [arch/x86/kernel] Error 2
> > > CC arch/x86/mach-voyager/setup.o
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/setup.c: In function 'intr_init_hook':
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/setup.c:30: error: implicit declaration of function 'smp_intr_init'
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/setup.c: In function 'machine_specific_memory_setup':
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/setup.c:65: warning: unused variable 'new_nr'
> > > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/mach-voyager/setup.o] Error 1
> > > CC arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.o
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c:67: error: conflicting types for 'phys_cpu_present_map'
> > > arch/x86/include/asm/mpspec.h:143: error: previous declaration of 'phys_cpu_present_map' was here
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c: In function 'start_secondary':
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c:444: error: implicit declaration of function 'notify_cpu_starting'
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c: In function 'smp_call_function_interrupt':
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c:955: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_smp_call_function_interrupt'
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c: In function 'smp_call_function_single_interrupt':
> > > arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c:963: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt'
> > > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.o] Error 1
> > > make[2]: Target `__build' not remade because of errors.
> > > make[1]: *** [arch/x86/mach-voyager] Error 2
> >
> > Yes ... present in the 2.6.28-rc as well. I've got it all fixed up
> > locally.
> >
> > This type of breakage is more or less expected given that I wait
> > until -rc1 for the tree to stop churning before trying to fix
> > voyager and the subarchitectures, and the fact that the current way
> > x86 is being developed tends to break them.
>
> one problem is the number of x86/Voyager testboxes - how many of them
> is there in existence - one or two, all of them owned by you?
>
> the other problem is that you are apparently checking whether
> x86/Voyager builds (boots?) at all only once every couple of months -
> once per kernel cycle or so. That obviously means you'll be affected
> by an accumulated set of bugs. Nobody else _can_ test it instead of
> you, because no other kernel hacker owns this hardware.
>
> So ... the right long-term way out of this is to do what we did with
> all the other x86 subarchitectures: to convert Voyager into a generic
> platform, via extension of the x86_quirks interfaces. That way we can
> remove the remainder of the fragile "x86 subarchitecture" concept.
> (which should never have been added to begin with)
>
> Would you be interested in helping us out with such a project? It
> would be a nice cleanup for sure.

Sure, I'd be interested in looking into that.

However, it won't help the problems since they're mostly compile
breakages caused by tampering with the HAL API for x86 and not seeing
that this affects various subarches. Moving voyager to a quirk wouldn't
fix that problem.

James




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-30 22:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans