From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933294Ab2GFLNW (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:13:22 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:37195 "EHLO mail-wi0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756283Ab2GFLNT (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:13:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 13:13:14 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Avi Kivity , Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , mtosatti@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] apic: fix kvm build on UP without IOAPIC Message-ID: <20120706111314.GG19552@gmail.com> References: <20120701150506.GA31304@redhat.com> <4FF0849D.5080406@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FF0849D.5080406@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 07/01/2012 08:05 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >On UP i386, when APIC is disabled > ># CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC is not set > ># CONFIG_PCI_IOAPIC is not set > > > >code looking at apicdrivers never has any effect but it > >still gets compiled in. In particular, this causes > >build failures with kvm, but it generally bloats the kernel > >unnecessarily. > > > >Fix by defining both __apicdrivers and __apicdrivers_end > >to be NULL when CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC is unset: I verified > >that as the result any loop scanning __apicdrivers gets optimized out by > >the compiler. > > > >Warning: a .config with apic disabled doesn't seem to boot > >for me (even without this patch). Still verifying why, > >meanwhile this patch is compile-tested only. > > > >Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > >--- > > > >Note: if this patch makes sense, can x86 maintainers > >please ACK applying it through the kvm tree, since that is > >where we see the issue that it addresses? > >Avi, Marcelo, maybe you can carry this in kvm/linux-next as a temporary > >measure so that linux-next builds? > > > > I'm not happy about that as a workflow, but since you guys have an > immediate problem I guess we can do that. I'm rather unhappy about this workflow - we've got quite a few apic bits in the x86 tree this cycle as well and need extra external interaction, not. Which KVM tree commit caused this, could someone please give a lkml link or quote it here? It's not referenced in the fix patch either. Thanks, Ingo