| Message ID | CAFULf_zzAZKk5CsPz+9x1i0gORbapwBBwzRH1BM7s_ZuEs_8DQ@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 02:51:48PM +0200, Bjarne Steinsbo wrote: > 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. Those two functions were never supposed to be inside the #ifdef -- my bad. Thanks for spotting it. Acked-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org> 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 > > Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> > Signed-off-by: Bjarne Steinsbo <bsteinsbo@gmail.com> > --- > arch/arm/mm/alignment.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c > index cfbcf8b..c335c76 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c > @@ -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); > -- > 1.7.1 > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
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 On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 02:51:48PM +0200, Bjarne Steinsbo wrote: >> 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. > > Those two functions were never supposed to be inside the #ifdef -- > my bad. Thanks for spotting it. > > Acked-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org> > > 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 > >> >> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> >> Signed-off-by: Bjarne Steinsbo <bsteinsbo@gmail.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/mm/alignment.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- >> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c >> index cfbcf8b..c335c76 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c >> @@ -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); >> -- >> 1.7.1 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Bjarne Steinsbo <bsteinsbo@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > BR, > > Bjarne Steinsbo > > a) That would produce a bigger patch, and > b) Moving code around to logically group similar functions is a different patch > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 02:51:48PM +0200, Bjarne Steinsbo wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Those two functions were never supposed to be inside the #ifdef -- >> my bad. Thanks for spotting it. >> >> Acked-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org> >> >> 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 >> >>> >>> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> >>> Signed-off-by: Bjarne Steinsbo <bsteinsbo@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/mm/alignment.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- >>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c >>> index cfbcf8b..c335c76 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c >>> @@ -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); >>> -- >>> 1.7.1 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >> >
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c index cfbcf8b..c335c76 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c +++ b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c @@ -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);
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. Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Bjarne Steinsbo <bsteinsbo@gmail.com> --- arch/arm/mm/alignment.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)