From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755929AbYFOGMS (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:12:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751390AbYFOGMH (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:12:07 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:46580 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751278AbYFOGMG (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:12:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4854B284.7030709@goop.org> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:11:16 +0100 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens Axboe CC: Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , chrisw@sous-sol.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 13 (XEN) References: <20080613232214.394fd6fd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080613101316.1c228fe7.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <4852F1C8.7060904@goop.org> <20080614203109.GH20851@kernel.dk> In-Reply-To: <20080614203109.GH20851@kernel.dk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> Randy Dunlap wrote: >> >>> next-20080613 on x86_32 has lots of xen build errors like this: >>> >>> linux-next-20080613/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c: In function 'drop_mm_ref': >>> linux-next-20080613/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c:759: error: implicit declaration of >>> function 'xen_smp_call_function_mask' >>> make[2]: *** [arch/x86/xen/mmu.o] Error 1 >>> >>> >>> >> Ooh, first time I've seen that. Sounds like Jens' patches are missing >> the appropriate update there (though it's certainly had it in the past). >> > > Hmm, will this work or do we need to force xen smp_ops for this one? I > wonder if this is new code and was missed, or what happened in this > case. > Yes, using smp_call_function_mask is perfectly OK. The old code was just a micro-optimisation. I'm pretty sure this chunk was in one of your patchsets (or perhaps I sent it to you at some point). > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c b/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c > index 3525ef5..8baef77 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c > @@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static void drop_mm_ref(struct mm_struct *mm) > } > > if (!cpus_empty(mask)) > - xen_smp_call_function_mask(mask, drop_other_mm_ref, mm, 1); > + smp_call_function_mask(mask, drop_other_mm_ref, mm, 1); > } > #else > static void drop_mm_ref(struct mm_struct *mm) > > Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge J