Re: [tip:x86/urgent] ix86: Fix build failure when !CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC

Ingo Molnar
2014-10-29T07:59:20Z

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 29.10.14 at 08:50, <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >>> On 28.10.14 at 12:18, <tipbot@zytor.com> wrote:
> >> > Commit-ID: a425cf83e39f99a70168c184e79cea8c67ba7c12
> >> > Gitweb:
> > http://git.kernel.org/tip/a425cf83e39f99a70168c184e79cea8c67ba7c12
> >> > Author: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
> >> > AuthorDate: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:44:24 +0100
> >> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> >> > CommitDate: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:01:09 +0100
> >> >
> >> > ix86: Fix build failure when !CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC
> >> >
> >> > mp_should_keep_irq() isn't really IO-APIC related, and
> >> > considering that it's being used solely in arch/x86/pci/ likely
> >> > both declaration and definition got misplaced even without
> >> > considering the resulting build failure:
> >> >
> >> > .../arch/x86/pci/irq.c: In function ‘pirq_disable_irq’:
> >> > .../arch/x86/pci/irq.c:1259: error: implicit declaration of function
> >> > ‘mp_should_keep_irq’
> >> > make[3]: *** [arch/x86/pci/irq.o] Error 1
> >> >
> >> > Move them to better places.
> >>
> >> Ingo,
> >>
> >> the build failure had got addressed by a different patch
> >> already, albeit that patch seems far from ideal to me. I.e. I
> >> still think cleanup along the lines of the patch here is
> >> desirable, but I need to submit one that actually builds (the
> >> build failure the test robot encountered is a direct result of
> >> the clash between the two patches). I have that patch ready,
> >> but didn't want to submit before I got around to test it with
> >> 3.18-rc.
> >
> > Okay, I've removed it from x86/urgent. Note that it also
> > generated this build failure:
> >
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/io_apic.h:240:20: error: static declaration of
> > ‘mp_should_keep_irq’ follows non-static declaration
>
> Right - that's the one I was referring to above (actually iirc there
> are two relatively similar build failures resulting from the conflict).

Okay. I didn't mind your cleanup, so please follow it up and I'll
apply it.

Thanks,

Ingo