Re: [PATCH -mm] x86_64 UP needs smp_call_function_single

[Randy Dunlap]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:11:40 -0800
> Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:00:00 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 17:45 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > No, I think this patch is right - the declaration of the CONFIG_SMP
> > > > smp_call_function_single() is in linux/smp.h so the !CONFIG_SMP
> > > > declaration
> > > > or definition should be there too.
> > > >
> > > > It's still buggy though.  It should disable local interrupts around
> > > > the
> > > > call to match the SMP version.  I'll fix that separately. 
> > > hm, didnt i send an updated patch for that already? See the patch below,
> > > from many days ago. I sent it after the tsc-sync-rewrite patch.
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > Has there been a patch for this one?  (UP again, not SMP)
> >
> > drivers/input/ff-memless.c:384: warning: implicit declaration of function 'local_bh_disable'
> > drivers/input/ff-memless.c:393: warning: implicit declaration of function 'local_bh_enable'
> >
> > Thanks,
> > ---
> > ~Randy
> > config:  http://oss.oracle.com/~rdunlap/configs/config-input-up-header
>
> eww..  I guess linux/spinlock.h should really include linux/interrupt.h. 
> But interrupt.h includes stuff like sched.h which will want spinlock.h.
>
> This, maybe?

Looks good.  I had already tried (and failed) adding interrupt.h to spinlock.h --
what a mess.

--
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/