On 11/07/2013 06:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:17:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: >> Using some interface which is arch specific and should not be used in a >> driver. > > Well, sorry, but this is not something which justifies enabling building > of compilation units on arches for which they don't apply. Rather, this > should be caught during review. > > I find it highly unfair to waste cycles building stuff on an arch for > which the drivers aren't meant for. And it doesn't make any sense anyway > - I'd like all*config to get finished at some point soonish and not > build the whole world. > > And, btw, highbank triggers the following on AMD64: > > CC [M] drivers/edac/edac_pci.o > CC [M] drivers/edac/highbank_mc_edac.o > CC [M] drivers/edac/highbank_l2_edac.o > drivers/edac/highbank_mc_edac.c: In function ‘highbank_mc_probe’: > drivers/edac/highbank_mc_edac.c:210:2: warning: large integer implicitly > truncated to unsigned type [-Woverflow] > dimm->nr_pages = (~0UL >> PAGE_SHIFT) + 1; > ^
See, we are benefiting already. I already found this thanks to the 0-day builder (which doesn't build arm64). This is a 64-bit vs. 32-bit bug and I need this driver enabled for arm64, so this needs to be fixed. > which is clearly a bug since ->nr_pages becomes 0. > > BUT(!), this bug doesn't make any sense on x86 since highbank won't load > there and yours is a 32-bit arm. (it'll probably make some sense on > arm64 assuming the native long type is 8 bytes there). > > And people would start reporting those bugs and we're going to start > asking on which arch are you compiling just to realize that a bug like > that doesn't make any sense on an N/A arch. > > Oh, and then other edac drivers would simply fail building: > > CC [M] drivers/edac/octeon_edac-pc.o > drivers/edac/octeon_edac-pc.c:21:29: fatal error: asm/octeon/cvmx.h: No such > file or directory > #include <asm/octeon/cvmx.h> > ^ > compilation terminated. > make[1]: *** [drivers/edac/octeon_edac-pc.o] Error 1 > > simply because x86/include doesn't have that header. Exactly the mess of arch or mach headers in drivers I referred to. > So let's not waste any more time with this topic. I think there are a > numerous other ways for achieving build coverage which make *way* *more* > sense than this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
