Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits

  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
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: EDAC (was: Re: 2.6.14-rc5-mm1)
• Next by Date: Re: is rpc_call blocking and wait for reponse before returning to the caller?
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]