On Sun, Jun 15 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 13 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > >>Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> > >>>next-20080613 on x86_32 has lots of xen build errors like this: > >>> > >>>linux-next-20080613/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c: In function 'drop_mm_ref': > >>>linux-next-20080613/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c:759: error: implicit declaration > >>>of function 'xen_smp_call_function_mask' > >>>make[2]: *** [arch/x86/xen/mmu.o] Error 1 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Ooh, first time I've seen that. Sounds like Jens' patches are missing > >>the appropriate update there (though it's certainly had it in the past). > >> > > > >Hmm, will this work or do we need to force xen smp_ops for this one? I > >wonder if this is new code and was missed, or what happened in this > >case. > > > > Yes, using smp_call_function_mask is perfectly OK. The old code was > just a micro-optimisation. I'm pretty sure this chunk was in one of > your patchsets (or perhaps I sent it to you at some point).
Hmm yes, not sure myself to be honest, but I think you are right. > >diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c b/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c > >index 3525ef5..8baef77 100644 > >--- a/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c > >+++ b/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c > >@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static void drop_mm_ref(struct mm_struct *mm) > > } > > > > if (!cpus_empty(mask)) > >- xen_smp_call_function_mask(mask, drop_other_mm_ref, mm, 1); > >+ smp_call_function_mask(mask, drop_other_mm_ref, mm, 1); > > } > > #else > > static void drop_mm_ref(struct mm_struct *mm) > > > > > > Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks, I just folded it in with the existing patch to avoid breakage. That one doesn't have an ack from you though, so if you have done a full review of the x86 bits, I'd appreciate an ack on those from you :-) -- Jens Axboe _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
