[PATCH] interrupt.h needs <asm/system.h>

[PATCH] interrupt.h needs <asm/system.h>

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

<asm/system.h> is needed for smp_mb(). Apparently this definition is pulled in
some other way on ia32.

--- linux-2.5.48/include/linux/interrupt.h	Mon Nov 18 10:04:00 2002
+++ linux-m68k-2.5.48/include/linux/interrupt.h	Mon Nov 18 15:35:14 2002
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
 #include <asm/hardirq.h>
 #include <asm/ptrace.h>
 #include <asm/softirq.h>
+#include <asm/system.h>
 
 struct irqaction {
 	void (*handler)(int, void *, struct pt_regs *);

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH] interrupt.h needs <asm/system.h>

[Pete Zaitcev]

><asm/system.h> is needed for smp_mb(). Apparently this definition is pulled in
> some other way on ia32.
> 
> --- linux-2.5.48/include/linux/interrupt.h	Mon Nov 18 10:04:00 2002
> +++ linux-m68k-2.5.48/include/linux/interrupt.h	Mon Nov 18 15:35:14 2002
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>  #include <asm/hardirq.h>
>  #include <asm/ptrace.h>
>  #include <asm/softirq.h>
> +#include <asm/system.h>
>  
>  struct irqaction {
>  	void (*handler)(int, void *, struct pt_regs *);

Geert's patch looks correct to me.

By the way, I am curious, why do we never comment why a header
was included, like so: "#include <asm/system.h> /* smp_mb */"?
I suspect people are afraid that the comments get stale.

-- Pete