From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757312Ab2AKJRa (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 04:17:30 -0500 Received: from e06smtp17.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.113]:56125 "EHLO e06smtp17.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754816Ab2AKJR1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 04:17:27 -0500 Message-ID: <4F0D538C.5040202@de.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:17:00 +0100 From: Christian Borntraeger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Ingo Molnar , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/s390: fix compile error in sched/core.c References: <1326268696-30904-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <1326272868.2442.122.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1326272868.2442.122.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit x-cbid: 12011109-0542-0000-0000-000000A28E7B Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/01/12 10:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 08:58 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> From: Christian Borntraeger >> >> commit 029632fbb7b7c9d85063cc9eb470de6c54873df3 >> sched: Make separate sched*.c translation units >> >> removed the include of asm/mutex.h from sched.c. This breaks the combination of >> >> CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER=yes >> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_MUTEX_CPU_RELAX=yes >> like s390 without mutex debugging: >> >> CC kernel/sched/core.o >> kernel/sched/core.c: In function ‘mutex_spin_on_owner’: >> kernel/sched/core.c:3287: error: implicit declaration of function ‘arch_mutex_cpu_relax’ >> make[2]: *** [kernel/sched/core.o] Error 1 >> >> Lets re-add the include to kernel/sched/core.c > > Weird, I would have expected -next to pick this up.. Maybe the builds of next runs with DEBUG_MUTEXES, which disables MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER. > Anyway, no objection although do we really need that extra #ifdef ? Dont think so. I consider this more as a comment why we need this. Whoever applies the patch, feel free to remove the ifdefs. Christian