>>> On 10.11.14 at 13:13, <[email protected]> wrote: > * Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote: >> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ >> } while (0) >> >> >> -#else /* !CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT */ >> +#else /* !CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS */ >> >> #define local_irq_enable() do { raw_local_irq_enable(); } while (0) >> #define local_irq_disable() do { raw_local_irq_disable(); } while (0) >> @@ -145,6 +145,6 @@ >> #define irqs_disabled_flags(flags) (raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)) >> #define safe_halt() do { raw_safe_halt(); } while (0) >> >> -#endif /* CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT */ >> +#endif /* CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS */ > > So this breaks a couple of non-x86 architectures, such as MIPS: > > /home/mingo/tip/include/acpi/platform/aclinuxex.h: In function > 'acpi_os_allocate': > /home/mingo/tip/include/acpi/platform/aclinuxex.h:86: error: implicit > declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled'
Now that I finally found time to look into this a little, I wonder what you expect: Code in linux/irqflags.h ahead of the above conditional uses arch_irqs_disable(): #define raw_irqs_disabled() (arch_irqs_disabled()) so it would seem to me that architectures are required to have the latter available. And in fact it would seem very logical to me if pieces like the definition of irqs_disabled() would be pulled out of that conditional, as their behavior shouldn't (for this one) or already doesn't (for e.g. irqs_disabled_flags() and local_save_flags()) differ between the two cases. Would, short of adding arch_irqs_disabled() for all architectures currently lacking it, uniformly using the definition from the #if portion of the conditional be an acceptable thing? If not, do you have any other suggestion on how to resolve this? Jan -- 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/
