Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 May 2012 11:30:02 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] irq_remap: fix the UP build failure |
| |
* Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 11:09 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > Fix the below UP build failure with CONFIG_IRQ_REMAP enabled. > > > > > > drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c:955:19: error: ‘struct irq_data’ has no member named ‘affinity’ > > > > hm: > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > +#endif > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > +#endif > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > +#endif > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > +#endif > > > > Adding this many #ifdefs is a bit sad. Could we not make the UP > > side have the (supposedly zero length!) affinity cpumask > > instead, or so, and make sure that the SMP functions compile to > > something sensible on UP? > > > > How about using config_enabled() to clean this up? Something > like the appended? > > I first tried config_enabled(SMP) with out closely looking at > the macro definition and didn't work. I had to use > config_enabled(CONFIG_SMP) to really get this working. So in > the appended patch I fixed config_enabled macro to accept > config_enabled(SMP). If this all sounds ok, then I can split > the appended patch into multiple patches.
Looks a lot cleaner!
Please split out the config_enabled() change into a separate patch and Cc: Linus on the resend.
I like your idea of allowing config_enabled(SMP) as well, there's no reason to say 'config' twice. It's too easy to get this wrong and AFAICS there's no build error if we are using a non-existent config flag, right?
Thanks,
Ingo -- 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/
| |