From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:50:13 +0000 Subject: Re: fixing 2.6.10 UP builds Message-Id: <200501121650.13730.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> List-Id: References: <20050106201427.GA6009@jale> In-Reply-To: <20050106201427.GA6009@jale> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:34 pm, Luck, Tony wrote: > >> arch/ia64/sn/kernel/sn2/sn_hwperf.c: In function `sn_hwperf_op_cpu': > >> arch/ia64/sn/kernel/sn2/sn_hwperf.c:360: warning: implicit declaration > >> of function `smp_call_function_single' > > > >Looks like we need a !CONFIG_SMP version of smp_call_function_single. > >include/linux/smp.h has a non-smp version of smp_call_function > >that just returns 0, should smp_call_function_single do the same thing? > > That would make the warning go away, but it isn't obvious to me > that you'd end up with code that did the right thing. Looking > at the bigger picture, just what is sn_hwperf_op_cpu() supposed > to do in the UP case? It's supposed to make a SAL call for the CPU specified in the op_arg. Seems like smp_call_function_single should make the specified call unconditionally on CPU 0? Jesse