Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:57:11 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/mm: fix undefined reference to `.__kernel_map_pages' on FSL PPC64 |
| |
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 10:33:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-01-28 10:01 GMT+09:00 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>: > > On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 13:22 -0600, Kim Phillips wrote: > >> arch/powerpc has __kernel_map_pages implementations in mm/pgtable_32.c, and > >> mm/hash_utils_64.c, of which the former is built for PPC32, and the latter > >> for PPC64 machines with PPC_STD_MMU. Fix arch/powerpc/Kconfig to not select > >> ARCH_SUPPORTS_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC when CONFIG_PPC_STD_MMU_64 isn't defined, > >> i.e., for 64-bit book3e builds to use the generic __kernel_map_pages() > >> in mm/debug-pagealloc.c. > >> > >> LD init/built-in.o > >> mm/built-in.o: In function `kernel_map_pages': > >> include/linux/mm.h:2076: undefined reference to `.__kernel_map_pages' > >> include/linux/mm.h:2076: undefined reference to `.__kernel_map_pages' > >> include/linux/mm.h:2076: undefined reference to `.__kernel_map_pages' > >> Makefile:925: recipe for target 'vmlinux' failed > >> make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com> > >> --- > >> v3: > >> - fix wording for hash_utils_64.c implementation pointed out by > >> Michael Ellerman > >> - changed designation from 'mm:' to 'powerpc/mm:', as I think this > >> now belongs in ppc-land > >> > >> v2: > >> - corrected SUPPORTS_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC selection to enable > >> non-STD_MMU_64 builds to use the generic __kernel_map_pages(). > > > > I'd be happy to take this through the powerpc tree for 3.20, but for this: > > > >> depends on: > >> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> > >> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:28:58 +0900 > >> Subject: [PATCH] mm/debug_pagealloc: fix build failure on ppc and some other archs > > > > I don't have that patch in my tree. > > > > But in what way does this patch depend on that one? > > > > It looks to me like it'd be safe to take this on its own, or am I wrong? > > > > Hello, > > These two patches are merged to Andrew's tree now.
That didn't answer either of Michael's questions ;)
Yes, I think they're independent. I was holding off on the powerpc one, waiting to see if it popped up in linux-next via your tree. I can merge both if you like?
| |