Re: [PATCH 0/3] core: fix build error when referencing arch specific structures

[Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:05 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
>> On Friday 07 September 2007 05:09, travis@sgi.com wrote:
>>> Since the core kernel routines need to reference cpu_sibling_map,
>>> whether it be a static array or a per_cpu data variable, an access
>>> function has been defined.
>>>
>>> In addition, changes have been made to the ia64 and ppc64 arch's to
>>> move the cpu_sibling_map from a static cpumask_t array [NR_CPUS] to
>>> be per_cpu cpumask_t arrays.
>>>
>>> Note that I do not have the ability to build or test patch 3/3, the
>>> ppc64 changes.
>>>
>>> Patches are referenced against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 .
>> It would be better if you could redo the patches with the original patches
>> reverted, not incremental changes. In the end we'll need a full patch set
>> with full changelog anyways, not a series of incremental fixes.
> 
> yup
>  
>> Also I guess some powerpc testers would be needed. Perhaps cc the
>> maintainers?
>>
> 
> yup
> 
> All architectures except sparc64 are now done - please have a shot at doing
> sparc64 as well.

Ok, will do.  I didn't realize there was only one more that used the SCHED_SMT
code.

> 
> I'd suggest that we not implement that cpu_sibling_map() macro and just
> open-code the per_cpu() everywhere.  So henceforth any architecture which
> implements CONFIG_SCHED_SMT must implement the per-cpu sibling map.

Yes, with only one more to do it's not that daunting. ;-)

> That's nice and simple, and avoids the unpleasant
> pretend-function-used-as-an-lvalue trick.  (Well OK, per_cpu() does
> that, but let's avoid resinning).

Yes, the per_cpu macro is quite the specimen. ;-)

Thanks!
Mike

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/