Hi Daniel, 2015-06-09 13:41 GMT+02:00 Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>: > On 09/06/15 10:14, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>> >>> The real solution is to provide a definition _in asm-generic_ for >>> arch_irqs_disabled(), rather than having almost every arch doing: >>> >>> static inline bool arch_irqs_disabled(void) >>> { >>> return arch_irqs_disabled_flags(arch_local_save_flags()); >>> } >>> >>> I'm personally refusing to take a patch for ARM which adds yet another >>> copy of the above. This is, after all, exactly the kind of stuff that >>> should be in asm-generic, or if not, in include/linux but overridable >>> by arch stuff. >>> >>> We keep going between the two extremes of "lets push lots of stuff into >>> arch stuff" and "lets try to extract the common bits out of arch code". >>> >>> Let's try and settle on one approach, and apply it universally.
> > Does the following patch, which makes the arch_irqs_disabled() > implementation from asm-generic available on arm, fix the build for you? I confirm it fixes the build on Russell's for-next branch with efm32_defconfig. I have no efm32 HW to test it though. > > I've only done a real quick 'n dirty check for regression: > multi_v7_defconfig still works ;-) > > If the patch is useful I can test it a bit harder... I can also test it this evening with my stm32 config. Thanks, Maxime -- 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/
