Re: [PATCH tip] Fix build failure x86_default_fixup_cpu_id() with!CONFIG_SMP

[Kamalesh Babulal]

* Steffen Persvold <sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-12-06 12:44:46]:

> On 12/6/2011 12:37, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >Hi Kamalesh,
> >
> >On 12/06/2011 04:17 PM, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>tip (a4a7e7e29333) build fails, when compiled with !CONFIG_SMP.
> >>I have only build tested the patch.
> >>
> >>x86: Fix x86_default_fixup_cpu_id() build failure with !CONFIG_SMP
> >>
> >>arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c: In function 'x86_default_fixup_cpu_id':
> >>arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:1149: error: 'struct cpuinfo_x86' has no member named 'phys_proc_id'
> >>make[3]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.o] Error 1
> >>
> >>the code was introduced by commit 64be4c1c24. This patch
> >>introduced #ifdef to guard !SMP case.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Kamalesh Babulal<kamalesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>----
> >
> >
> >There was a similar build-fix patch by Steffen Persvold at:
> >https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/6/28
> >
> >That would solve your case too, right?
> >

Thanks for pointing out the patch.

> 
> I would hope so (I tested with !CONFIG_SMP also), albeit I used :
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> 
> and not
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> 
> 
> but I don't think you can compile with CONFIG_NUMA without having
> CONFIG_SMP  (if I read the Kconfig correctly..).
> 
> I used CONFIG_NUMA because the code-path doesn't really make sense
> on non-numa nodes.

agree, cpuinfo_x86->phys_proc_id is protected within CONFIG_SMP but the
right way is to fix using CONFIG_NUMA as explained by you in 
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/6/28.

Regards,
Kamalesh.

--
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/