Re: linux-next: s390 build failure

[Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 01:42:48PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> > 
> > Starting with next-20080613, the linux-next build (s390 defconfig s390x
> > compiler) has failed with these errors:
> > 
> > In file included from /scratch/michael/kisskb-build/src/include/linux/spinlock.h:87,
> >                  from /scratch/michael/kisskb-build/src/include/linux/smp.h:11,
> >                  from /scratch/michael/kisskb-build/src/include/linux/kernel_stat.h:4,
> >                  from /scratch/michael/kisskb-build/src/mm/memory.c:41:
> > include2/asm/spinlock.h: In function '__raw_spin_lock':
> > include2/asm/spinlock.h:69: error: implicit declaration of function 'smp_processor_id'
> > 
> > There are others as well, but I was concentrating on this.  Bisecting
> > leads to commit 2448ad3d8e64a9b58acca34a3d010cfa0be88cc1 which is the
> > merge of the block tree.  The block tree contains a commit
> > (37e81b98dba08cce1d8eedb2bdaa58022bf31ee0 "Add generic helpers for arch
> > IPI function calls") that adds an include of linux/spinlock.h to
> > linux/smp.h. (asm-s390/spinlock.h includes linux/smp.h ...)
> > 
> > But the block tree itself is OK.  So something in the s390 tree is
> > interacting with the above commit to cause the failure.  It is not
> > immediately obvious to me what that is. (Or I may have screwed up the
> > bisect :-))
> 
> Heiko was looking into this, I had forgotten about it. Heiko, did you
> find an adequate solution to this?

My only conclusion back then was that you shouldn't add the new
#include <linux/spinlock.h> to include <linux/smp.h> (see also Martin's mail).