lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix ACPI induced voyager compile failure

* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 23:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 22:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >From c339b7cdc39399855ec07dfbff67304f9c7fa49a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
> > > > > Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:58:13 -0500
> > > > > Subject: [VOYAGER] x86: don't pull asm/acpi.h into fixmap_32.h
> > > > >
> > > > > If it's not needed it causes compile failures.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/fixmap_32.h | 2 ++
> > > > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/fixmap_32.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/fixmap_32.h
> > > > > index 09f29ab..c3302ee 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/fixmap_32.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/fixmap_32.h
> > > > > @@ -25,7 +25,9 @@ extern unsigned long __FIXADDR_TOP;
> > > > >
> > > > > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > > > #include <asm/acpi.h>
> > > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > > hm, that's quite ugly - such headers are supposed to be safe even if
> > > > CONFIG_APIC is not turned on.
> > > >
> > > > What kind of compiler failures are you getting, could you send the
> > > > .config that triggers it? I'm curious what the real cause of the build
> > > > failure is - the #ifdef you are adding seems to fix a symptom, not a
> > > > real bug - and maybe we can do a better fix.
> > >
> > > It's the problem of voyager wanting its own definition of
> > > phys_cpu_present_map. acpi.h pulls in mpspec.h which contaminates the
> > > voyager_smp.c build.
> >
> > i guess voyager could use physid_mask_t just fine?
> >
> > physid_mask_t is MAX_APICS derived - but it should work out fine
> > because AFAICS voyager has a maximum of 4 cpus (but definitely less
> > than say 32), while MAX_APICS never goes below 256.
>
> Voyager has a max of 32 actually. [...]

(yes, <= 32 is what i meant.)

> [...] The CPU numbering is also fixed and identifies the processor
> position (for FRU replacement), so the physical map is what we use
> throughout the code. The problem with the definition is that it
> makes a rather pointless distinction between physical and logical
> map types ... so there'd be a lot of code churn. It would be really
> nice if physmask_t and cpumask_t could become the same type ... then
> we could do all this and no-one would notice.

if you mean physid_mask_t, i agree that it would be a tempting
simplification if we got rid of the physid_mask_t distinction and made
it equal to cpumask_t.

If the largest APIC ID in the bootup gets larger than NR_CPUS we
should just clip it and print a warning about it in the syslog. (it
would likely not boot up though, if that ID is an ioapic's ID)

OTOH, right now there's some practical complications: even on small
systems we can easily get a relatively large APIC ID, needlessly
driving up the NR_CPUS limit.

Yinghai, Peter, what do you think?

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-03 11:05    [W:0.095 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site