From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>,
Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] include: crash_dump.h: Add elf.h header
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:28:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120104122805.103eb7e2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1325678666-13089-1-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com>
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:04:26 -0200
Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Building an ARM target we get the following warnings:
>
> CC arch/arm/kernel/setup.o
> In file included from arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:39:
> arch/arm/include/asm/elf.h:102:1: warning: "vmcore_elf64_check_arch" redefined
> In file included from arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:24:
> include/linux/crash_dump.h:30:1: warning: this is the location of the previous definition
>
> Quoting Russell King:
>
> "linux/crash_dump.h makes no attempt to include asm/elf.h, but it depends
> on stuff in asm/elf.h to determine how stuff inside this file is defined
> at parse time.
>
> So, if asm/elf.h is included after linux/crash_dump.h or not at all, you
> get a different result from the situation where asm/elf.h is included
> before."
>
> So add elf.h header to crash_dump.h to avoid this problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
> ---
> The original discussion about this can be found at:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg154113.html
>
> include/linux/crash_dump.h | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/crash_dump.h b/include/linux/crash_dump.h
> index 5c4abce..b936763 100644
> --- a/include/linux/crash_dump.h
> +++ b/include/linux/crash_dump.h
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> #include <linux/kexec.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
> +#include <linux/elf.h>
>
> #define ELFCORE_ADDR_MAX (-1ULL)
> #define ELFCORE_ADDR_ERR (-2ULL)
The patch is the right thing to do, however I'm rather concerned about
the potential for introducing build breakage so late in 3.2.
Can we leave this unfixed in 3.2 and fix it in 3.2.1? Or put a
#include elf.h into arch/arm/kernel/setup.c for 3.2?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-04 20:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-04 12:04 [PATCH] include: crash_dump.h: Add elf.h header Fabio Estevam
2012-01-04 20:28 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2012-01-04 21:56 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120104122805.103eb7e2.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fabio.estevam@freescale.com \
--cc=festevam@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox