Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code

Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]> writes:

>> Does powerpc still build?  A key question is how do we handle architectures
>> that always want to want to call machine_power_off.
>
> I didn't (and can't) check, but it should.  IIRC multiple declaration
> of a variable is OK, as long as at most one has an initializer.

And as long as you don't build with -fno-common.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [email protected]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code
  - From: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code
  - From: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code
  - From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code
  - From: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: XFS accessing arch-specific structures
Next by Date: Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code
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]