Randy Dunlap wrote: > From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Make KVM_CLOCK depend on HAVE_KVM. Otherwise a Voyager build can > fail with: > > CC arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.s > In file included from include2/asm/irqflags.h:59, > from /local/linsrc/next-20080314/include/linux/irqflags.h:46, > from include2/asm/system.h:11, > from include2/asm/processor.h:21, > from include2/asm/atomic_32.h:5, > from include2/asm/atomic.h:2, > from /local/linsrc/next-20080314/include/linux/crypto.h:20, > from > /local/linsrc/next-20080314/arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets_32.c:7, > from > /local/linsrc/next-20080314/arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.c:2: > include2/asm/paravirt.h: In function 'startup_ipi_hook': > include2/asm/paravirt.h:856: error: 'struct pv_apic_ops' has no member named > 'startup_ipi_hook' > include2/asm/paravirt.h:856: error: 'struct pv_apic_ops' has no member named > 'startup_ipi_hook' > include2/asm/paravirt.h:856: error: memory input 4 is not directly addressable > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1 > make[1]: *** [prepare0] Error 2 > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 > >
Looks like it's a general paravirt vs voyager issue, nothing kvmclock specific about it. Wouldn't it be better to have voyager and paravirt mutually exclude each other, rather than every paravirt user? HAVE_KVM is intended for the host, not the guest, btw. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
