Re: [PATCH 1/2 #tj-percpu] x86: fix build breakage on voyage

[Ingo Molnar]

* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Impact: build fix
> > > 
> > > x86_cpu_to_apicid and x86_bios_cpu_apicid aren't defined for voyage. 
> > > Earlier patch forgot to conditionalize early percpu clearing.  Fix it.
> > 
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
> > >  	early_per_cpu_ptr(x86_cpu_to_apicid) = NULL;
> > >  	early_per_cpu_ptr(x86_bios_cpu_apicid) = NULL;
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > That patch is not acceptable - it is ugly and it adds another set of
> > #ifdefs to an already complex piece of code.
> > 
> > As i explained it to James in recent threads, the clean and acceptable 
> > solution to this class of problems is to switch Voyager away from that 
> > fragile subarch code to proper generic x86 code. (just like we did it for 
> > other subarchitectures)
> > 
> > There is nothing in Voyager that justifies special treatment in the area 
> > of x86 percpu code.
> > 
> > This is one of the mails that explains the principles:
> > 
> >   http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0901.2/00954.html
> > 
> > Or - if there's no time/interest in doing that, we can mark Voyager as 
> > CONFIG_BROKEN.
> 
> Have you quite finished?

What is that supposed to mean?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/