Ingo - I think you broke the sparc defconfig build with this.
I am seeing the sparc defconfig (crosstool) build broken with 2.6.14-rc5-mm1.
It built ok with 2.6.14-rc4-mm1.
This build now fails for me, with:
=========================================================
CC net/ipv4/route.o
In file included from include/linux/mroute.h:129,
from net/ipv4/route.c:89:
include/net/sock.h: In function `sk_dst_get':
include/net/sock.h:972: warning: implicit declaration of function `__raw_read_unlock'
include/net/sock.h: In function `sk_dst_set':
include/net/sock.h:991: warning: implicit declaration of function `__raw_write_unlock'
net/ipv4/route.c: In function `rt_check_expire':
net/ipv4/route.c:663: warning: dereferencing `void *' pointer
net/ipv4/route.c:663: error: request for member `raw_lock' in something not a structure or union
make[2]: *** [net/ipv4/route.o] Error 1
=========================================================
Your patch added:
> +++ linux/include/linux/spinlock.h
> ...
> +# define write_unlock_irq(lock) \
> + do { __raw_write_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock); local_irq_enable(); } while (0)
I see __raw_write_unlock defined in include/asm-sparc/spinlock.h, which
is not included in defconfig sparc builds because such builds are non-
debug UP builds.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]