From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: s390 build failure Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:14:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20080626091448.GM20851@kernel.dk> References: <20080620124235.24fbe33e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080620114247.GY20851@kernel.dk> <20080621080702.GA4841@osiris.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:16538 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754095AbYFZJOv (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:14:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080621080702.GA4841@osiris.ibm.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 21 2008, Heiko Carstens wrote: > 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 to include (see also Martin's mail). OK, I changed it to not include spinlock.h and kill the call_function_lock decleration. If generic smp helpers are now used, smp.c will include functions for acquiring and releasing the ipi call lock instead. -- Jens Axboe