Re: PREEMPT_ACTIVE too low error with all asm-generic headers for some arches

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:

> after pulling the latest mainline code, Blackfin started hitting a
> build failure like so:
>   CC      arch/blackfin/kernel/asm-offsets.s
> In file included from include/linux/interrupt.h:12,
>                  from include/linux/kernel_stat.h:8,
>                  from arch/blackfin/kernel/asm-offsets.c:32:
> include/linux/hardirq.h:66:2: error: #error PREEMPT_ACTIVE is too low!
> make[1]: *** [arch/blackfin/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
> 
> this is because we've converted to asm-generic for most of our headers
> (including hardirq.h).  originally we were defining HARDIRQ_BITS
> ourselves to 8, but then we dropped that in favor of the
> asm-generic/hardirq.h which setup a default of 8.  but then they
> dropped it in favor of the linux/hardirq.h default handling ... but it
> sets it to MAX_HARDIRQ_BITS by default which is 10.  which pushes
> Blackfin over the edge and into this build error.

hm, you wrote this mail to me but i havent touched asm-generic nor 
blackfin in this cycle. The breakage appears to have been caused by 
or at around this commit:

>From 804387a1af87f66a4b93eee230ba98f8b906b088 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:38:11 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] asm-generic: drop HARDIRQ_BITS definition from hardirq.h

[...]

Reported-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

So i've Cc:-ed those folks too.

> if we look at linux/hardirq.h, it makes this claim:
>  * - bit 28 is the PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag
> if that's true, then why are we letting any arch set this define ?  a
> quick survey shows that half the arches (11) are using 0x10000000 (bit
> 28) while the other half (10) are using 0x4000000 (bit 26).  and then
> there is the ia64 oddity which uses bit 30.  the exact value here
> shouldnt really matter across arches though should it ?

Correct - what matters is to have no collision between the fields.

> how about adding this to linux/thread_info.h:
> #ifndef PREEMPT_ACTIVE
> # ifndef PREEMPT_ACTIVE_BIT
> #  define PREEMPT_ACTIVE_BIT 28
> # endif
> # define PREEMPT_ACTIVE (1 << PREEMPT_ACTIVE_BIT)
> #endif

Makes sense i guess - but do we really need that level of
#ifdef nesting? PREEMPT_ACTIVE_BIT should be the main control - with
a default to 28 if it's not set. PREEMPT_ACTIVE is then derived off 
that, without any #ifdefs.

Anyway ... no objections from me in this area (and your build is 
broken so i suspect you want a fix quickly), just please make the 
override clean. Btw., why cannot blackfin use the defaults?

	Ingo