Re: [PATCH] x86: more header fixes

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> >> thanks. I've picked up these changes and rebased them to -git. (that
> >> way they can be maintained as a topic easier) The few files that were
> >> left out due to conflicts we can do later on. I pushed the result out
> >> into the tip/x86/header-guards topic branch - please double-check that
> >> i merged it right.
> >
> > hm, doesnt work with:
> >
> > http://redhat.com/~mingo/misc/config-Wed_Jul_16_15_13_24_CEST_2008.bad
> >
> > include/asm/mpspec.h:39: error: 'MAX_MP_BUSSES' undeclared here (not in
> > a function)
> > In file included from include/asm/smp.h:15,
> >                 from include/linux/smp.h:28,
> >                 from include/asm/desc.h:8,
> >                 from include/asm/elf.h:89,
> >                 from include/linux/elf.h:7,
> >                 from arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c:29:
> > include/asm/io_apic.h:149: error: 'MAX_IRQ_SOURCES' undeclared here (not
> > in a function)
> >
> > etc. Some of those header guards confused some other code i guess.
> 
> Yes, you are right. Check out this incredibly hideous hack of
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c:
> 
> /*
>  * we have to be careful, because no indirections are allowed here, and
>  * paravirt_ops is a kind of one. As it will only run in baremetal anyway,
>  * we just keep it from happening
>  */
> #undef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> #define _ASM_DESC_H_ 1
> #endif
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> #define _LINUX_STRING_H_ 1
> #define __LINUX_BITMAP_H 1
> #endif
> 
> I'm not sure how we should proceed with this. On one hand, we could 
> just fix the issues as they come up and be done with it. On the other 
> hand, this was exactly the thing I wanted to avoid by automatic it. I 
> guess it can never be fully automated... The question is if there is 
> any danger of *silent* (read: runtime) breakage, which would be much 
> worse than compiler errors.

dont worry, lets fix the above hideous hack first, then i can merge the 
guards fixes ontop of that fix. That's why we do testing, to catch the 
cases where assumptions fail. Your script is just fine - it beats having 
to edit 280+ files by hand ...

	Ingo