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

> >> 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.

That seals the argument, since -fno-common is in linux/Makefile.

So the patch wants fixing on powerpc, but I don't feel up to the task.

Somebody with better knowledge of that arch?

Miklos
-
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: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)

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]>
- Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code
  - From: Andreas Schwab <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code
Next by Date: [PATCH 2.6-git 0/4] SPI core refresh
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]