ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected
PATCH 1/1 ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected
Compiling mm/alignment.c without CONFIG_PROC_FS selected fails with undefined cpu_is_v6_unaligned() and safe_usermode().
Move #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, including definition of usermode_action[], further down to avoid this problem.
--- arch/arm/mm/alignment.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mm/alignment.c +10 -10
@@ -86,16 +86,6 @@ core_param(alignment, ai_usermode, int, 0600);#define UM_FIXUP (1 << 1)#define UM_SIGNAL (1 << 2) -#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS -static const char *usermode_action[] = { -"ignored" , -"warn" , -"fixup" , -"fixup+warn" , -"signal" , -"signal+warn" -}; -/* Return true if and only if the ARMv6 unaligned access model is in use. */ static bool cpu_is_v6_unaligned (void ) {
@@ -123,6 +113,16 @@ static int safe_usermode(int new_usermode, bool warn)return new_usermode; } +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS +static const char *usermode_action[] = { +"ignored" , +"warn" , +"fixup" , +"fixup+warn" , +"signal" , +"signal+warn" +}; +static int alignment_proc_show (struct seq_file *m,void *v) {seq_printf (m,"User:\t\t%lu\n" , ai_user);
Signature · 1 line
1.7.1
PATCH 1/1 ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected
Quoted 5 lines · Bjarne Steinsbo
Compiling
mm/alignment.cwithoutCONFIG_PROC_FSselected fails with undefinedcpu_is_v6_unaligned()andsafe_usermode().Move #ifdef
CONFIG_PROC_FS, including definition of usermode_action[], further down to avoid this problem.
Those two functions were never supposed to be inside the #ifdef -- my bad. Thanks for spotting it.
Alternatively, it may be tidier to move cpu_is_v6_unaligned() and safe_usermode() alongside the other static functions, just before do_alignment_finish_ldst().
I leave it up to you to decide whether you prefer that; either fix is valid.
Cheers
---Dave
Quoted 52 lines
Cc Russell King <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Bjarne Steinsbo <[email protected]>--- arch/arm/mm/alignment.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)arch/arm/mm/alignment.c +10
-10@@ -86,16 +86,6 @@ core_param(alignment, ai_usermode, int, 0600);#define UM_FIXUP (1 << 1)#define UM_SIGNAL (1 << 2) -#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS -static const char *usermode_action[] = { -"ignored" , -"warn" , -"fixup" , -"fixup+warn" , -"signal" , -"signal+warn" -}; -/* Return true if and only if the ARMv6 unaligned access model is in use. */ static bool cpu_is_v6_unaligned (void ) {@@ -123,6 +113,16 @@ static int safe_usermode(int new_usermode, bool warn)return new_usermode; } +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS +static const char *usermode_action[] = { +"ignored" , +"warn" , +"fixup" , +"fixup+warn" , +"signal" , +"signal+warn" +}; +static int alignment_proc_show (struct seq_file *m,void *v) {seq_printf (m,"User:\t\t%lu\n" , ai_user);Signature · 6 lines
1.7.1 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
PATCH 1/1 ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected
Dave,
If it's up to me, I would say leave it as it is. I'm all for changing the code to logically group similar functions, but I feel that should be a different patch. One for you, maybe?
BR,
Bjarne Steinsbo
a) That would produce a bigger patch, and
b) Moving code around to logically group similar functions is a different patch
Quoted 75 lines · Dave Martin
Quoted 5 lines · Bjarne Steinsbo
Compiling
mm/alignment.cwithoutCONFIG_PROC_FSselected fails with undefinedcpu_is_v6_unaligned()andsafe_usermode().Move #ifdef
CONFIG_PROC_FS, including definition of usermode_action[], further down to avoid this problem.Those two functions were never supposed to be inside the #ifdef -- my bad. ?Thanks for spotting it.
Acked-by Dave Martin <[email protected]>Alternatively, it may be tidier to move
cpu_is_v6_unaligned()andsafe_usermode()alongside the other static functions, just beforedo_alignment_finish_ldst().I leave it up to you to decide whether you prefer that; either fix is valid.
Cheers
---DaveQuoted 52 lines
Cc Russell King <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Bjarne Steinsbo <[email protected]>---
?arch/arm/mm/alignment.c | ? 20 ++++++++++---------- ?1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)arch/arm/mm/alignment.c +0
-10@@ -86,16 +86,6 @@ core_param(alignment, ai_usermode, int, 0600); ?#define UM_FIXUP ? ? (1 << 1) ?#define UM_SIGNAL ? ?(1 << 2) -#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS -static const char *usermode_action[] = { - ? ? "ignored", - ? ? "warn", - ? ? "fixup", - ? ? "fixup+warn", - ? ? "signal", - ? ? "signal+warn" -}; -?/* Return true if and only if the ARMv6 unaligned access model is in use. */ ?static bool
cpu_is_v6_unaligned(void)
?{arch/arm/mm/alignment.c +10
-1@@ -123,6 +113,16 @@ static int safe_usermode(int new_usermode, bool warn) ? ? ? return new_usermode; ?} +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS +static const char *usermode_action[] = { + ? ? "ignored", + ? ? "warn", + ? ? "fixup", + ? ? "fixup+warn", + ? ? "signal", + ? ? "signal+warn" +}; + ?static int alignment_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) ?{ ? ? ? seq_printf(m, "User:\t\t%lu\n", ai_user); --1.7.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
PATCH 1/1 ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected
Quoted 5 lines · Bjarne Steinsbo
Dave,
If it's up to me, I would say leave it as it is. ?I'm all for changing the code to logically group similar functions, but I feel that should be a different patch. ?One for you, maybe?
I'm happy either way, so let's go with your smaller patch.
I won't post an extra patch to move the functions unless I do some future work on that file. I think that a cosmetic thing like this doesn't really merit an extra patch for now.
Thanks again
---Dave
Quoted 85 lines
BR,
Bjarne Steinsbo
a) That would produce a bigger patch, and
b) Moving code around to logically group similar functions is a different patchQuoted 75 lines · Dave Martin
Quoted 5 lines · Bjarne Steinsbo
Compiling
mm/alignment.cwithoutCONFIG_PROC_FSselected fails with undefinedcpu_is_v6_unaligned()andsafe_usermode().Move #ifdef
CONFIG_PROC_FS, including definition of usermode_action[], further down to avoid this problem.Those two functions were never supposed to be inside the #ifdef -- my bad. ?Thanks for spotting it.
Acked-by Dave Martin <[email protected]>Alternatively, it may be tidier to move
cpu_is_v6_unaligned()andsafe_usermode()alongside the other static functions, just beforedo_alignment_finish_ldst().I leave it up to you to decide whether you prefer that; either fix is valid.
Cheers
---DaveQuoted 52 lines
Cc Russell King <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Bjarne Steinsbo <[email protected]>---
?arch/arm/mm/alignment.c | ? 20 ++++++++++---------- ?1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)arch/arm/mm/alignment.c +0
-10@@ -86,16 +86,6 @@ core_param(alignment, ai_usermode, int, 0600); ?#define UM_FIXUP ? ? (1 << 1) ?#define UM_SIGNAL ? ?(1 << 2) -#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS -static const char *usermode_action[] = { - ? ? "ignored", - ? ? "warn", - ? ? "fixup", - ? ? "fixup+warn", - ? ? "signal", - ? ? "signal+warn" -}; -?/* Return true if and only if the ARMv6 unaligned access model is in use. */ ?static bool
cpu_is_v6_unaligned(void)
?{arch/arm/mm/alignment.c +10
-1@@ -123,6 +113,16 @@ static int safe_usermode(int new_usermode, bool warn) ? ? ? return new_usermode; ?} +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS +static const char *usermode_action[] = { + ? ? "ignored", + ? ? "warn", + ? ? "fixup", + ? ? "fixup+warn", + ? ? "signal", + ? ? "signal+warn" +}; + ?static int alignment_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) ?{ ? ? ? seq_printf(m, "User:\t\t%lu\n", ai_user); --1.7.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Signature · 9 lines
Dave Martin <[email protected]> Linaro Kernel Working Group -- http://www.linaro.org/ -- Open source software for ARM SoCs http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/