Re: [PATCH 2/3] irq_remap: fix the UP build failure

[Ingo Molnar]

* Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 11:09 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Fix the below UP build failure with CONFIG_IRQ_REMAP enabled.
> > > 
> > >  drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c:955:19: error: âstruct irq_dataâ has no member named âaffinityâ
> > 
> > hm:
> > 
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > +#endif
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > +#endif
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > +#endif
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > Adding this many #ifdefs is a bit sad. Could we not make the UP 
> > side have the (supposedly zero length!) affinity cpumask 
> > instead, or so, and make sure that the SMP functions compile to 
> > something sensible on UP?
> > 
> 
> How about using config_enabled() to clean this up? Something 
> like the appended?
> 
> I first tried config_enabled(SMP) with out closely looking at 
> the macro definition and didn't work. I had to use 
> config_enabled(CONFIG_SMP) to really get this working. So in 
> the appended patch I fixed config_enabled macro to accept 
> config_enabled(SMP). If this all sounds ok, then I can split 
> the appended patch into multiple patches.

Looks a lot cleaner!

Please split out the config_enabled() change into a separate 
patch and Cc: Linus on the resend.

I like your idea of allowing config_enabled(SMP) as well, 
there's no reason to say 'config' twice. It's too easy to get 
this wrong and AFAICS there's no build error if we are using a 
non-existent config flag, right?

Thanks,

	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/