From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755772Ab0ECR7h (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 13:59:37 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36921 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755718Ab0ECR7f (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 13:59:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:58:52 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Yinghai Cc: Tetsuo Handa , trenn@suse.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6.31.13] Build failure at arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c Message-ID: <20100503175852.GB3490@suse.de> References: <201004120230.o3C2UhfQ050532@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20100412024446.GA28141@suse.de> <201004120410.o3C4Axwe066941@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20100501180715.GA7745@suse.de> <4BDF04D6.7040003@oracle.com> <20100503174422.GC11676@suse.de> <4BDF0CF1.5070006@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BDF0CF1.5070006@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:50:41AM -0700, Yinghai wrote: > On 05/03/2010 10:44 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:16:06AM -0700, Yinghai wrote: > >> On 05/01/2010 11:07 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 01:10:59PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >>>> Commit d539e5576605d048e6aeb21cbe3a8e71dc5eea81 "x86: Fix SCI on IOAPIC != 0" > >>>> introduced "void setup_IO_APIC_irq_extra(u32 gsi)" which calls > >>>> mp_find_ioapic() and mp_find_ioapic_pin(). > >>>> > >>>> This commit does not compile if CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC=y and CONFIG_ACPI=n . > >>> > >>> Why would you want to build without ACPI on any modern system? Anyway, > >>> have a fix for this? > >>> > >> maybe just put #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI around the callee etc? > > > > Ick. How was it solved upstream? > > > > those two functions are moved to arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c > > maybe you can put that patch to 2.6.31.xx? Ah, yeah, that might be good, I'll see about that, if I do another .31-stable release, which right now, I do not think so. thanks, greg k-h