On 02/18/2014 04:32 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:11:32AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
kernel/seccomp.c includes linux/compat.h and, indicrectly, asm/compat.h
via asm/syscall.h. Due to the duplicated definition of is_compat_task,
compiling this file will fail in the case of !CONFIG_COMPAT.
This patch makes the definition in asm/compat.h valid only if necessary.
Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
index fda2704..72f3b18 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
@@ -305,10 +305,12 @@ static inline int is_compat_thread(struct thread_info
*thread)
#else /* !CONFIG_COMPAT */
+#ifndef is_compat_task /* it's there in linux/compat.h */
static inline int is_compat_task(void)
{
return 0;
}
+#endif
This is horrible! Can we instead include linux/compat.h where we need this
macro and then remove this definition?
It's fine with me, but asm/compat.h is also included in
hw_breakpoint.c, process.c, ptrace.c and signal.c.
After replacing asm/compat.h to linux/compat.h in these files, I could
successfully built
the kernel, but I can't guarantee that the kernel works without any problem :-)
Anyway I will go forward with this change.
-Takahiro AKASHI
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
