From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Murilo_Opsfelder_Ara=c3=bajo?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] include/linux/vfio.h: Guard powerpc-specific functions with CONFIG_VFIO_SPAPR_EEH Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:32:54 -0300 Message-ID: References: <201706080005.vXjRK5G3%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <871squemf2.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kbuild-all@01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Alex Williamson , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org To: Alexey Kardashevskiy , Michael Ellerman , kbuild test robot Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 06/08/2017 10:10 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: [...] > The config you attached in the first mail has CONFIG_VFIO_SPAPR_EEH=m, here > is my confusion. The config from the link below does not have KVM_BOOK3S_64 > which selects SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU and which in turn selects VFIO_IOMMU_SPAPR_TCE. > > So > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/36ed1ddb05e132aa3cfbb610f0f8402a0774da12 > looks correct. It wasn't me that attached the .config.gz, it was this 0dayci robot. When CONFIG_VFIO_SPAPR_EEH=m, there is no definition of it in autoconf.h, only CONFIG_VFIO_SPAPR_EEH_MODULE is defined: $ grep 'VFIO_SPAPR_EEH' ./include/generated/autoconf.h #define CONFIG_VFIO_SPAPR_EEH_MODULE 1 In this case, `#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_SPAPR_EEH` will be false. That's why my v1 patch failed with the 0dayci .config and robot reported back. This was addressed in my v2 patch using the IS_ENABLED() macro, which checks for both CONFIG_ and CONFIG__MODULE definitions. -- Murilo