[PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Dean Nelson]

Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().

Signed-off-by: Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>

---

 arch/ia64/include/asm/uv/uv.h  |   13 +++++++++++++
 drivers/misc/sgi-gru/gru.h     |    2 --
 drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufile.c |   18 +++---------------
 drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xp.h       |   22 ++++++++--------------
 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

Index: linux/arch/ia64/include/asm/uv/uv.h
===================================================================
--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ linux/arch/ia64/include/asm/uv/uv.h	2009-02-09 09:18:45.657924900 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+#ifndef _ASM_IA64_UV_UV_H
+#define _ASM_IA64_UV_UV_H
+
+#include <asm/system.h>
+#include <asm/sn/simulator.h>
+
+static inline int is_uv_system(void)
+{
+	/* temporary support for running on hardware simulator */
+	return IS_MEDUSA() || ia64_platform_is("uv");
+}
+
+#endif	/* _ASM_IA64_UV_UV_H */
Index: linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/gru.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/gru.h	2009-02-09 09:18:43.485658003 -0600
+++ linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/gru.h	2009-02-09 09:18:45.677927344 -0600
@@ -19,8 +19,6 @@
 #ifndef __GRU_H__
 #define __GRU_H__
 
-#include <asm/uv/uv.h>
-
 /*
  * GRU architectural definitions
  */
Index: linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufile.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufile.c	2009-02-09 09:18:43.485658003 -0600
+++ linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufile.c	2009-02-09 09:18:45.697930179 -0600
@@ -36,23 +36,11 @@
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
 #include <linux/uaccess.h>
+#include <asm/uv/uv.h>
 #include "gru.h"
 #include "grulib.h"
 #include "grutables.h"
 
-#if defined CONFIG_X86_64
-#include <asm/genapic.h>
-#include <asm/irq.h>
-#define IS_UV()		is_uv_system()
-#elif defined CONFIG_IA64
-#include <asm/system.h>
-#include <asm/sn/simulator.h>
-/* temp support for running on hardware simulator */
-#define IS_UV()		IS_MEDUSA() || ia64_platform_is("uv")
-#else
-#define IS_UV()		0
-#endif
-
 #include <asm/uv/uv_hub.h>
 #include <asm/uv/uv_mmrs.h>
 
@@ -381,7 +369,7 @@ static int __init gru_init(void)
 	char id[10];
 	void *gru_start_vaddr;
 
-	if (!IS_UV())
+	if (!is_uv_system())
 		return 0;
 
 #if defined CONFIG_IA64
@@ -451,7 +439,7 @@ static void __exit gru_exit(void)
 	int order = get_order(sizeof(struct gru_state) *
 			      GRU_CHIPLETS_PER_BLADE);
 
-	if (!IS_UV())
+	if (!is_uv_system())
 		return;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < GRU_CHIPLETS_PER_BLADE; i++)
Index: linux/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xp.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xp.h	2009-02-09 09:18:43.489658800 -0600
+++ linux/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xp.h	2009-02-09 09:19:18.065905314 -0600
@@ -15,21 +15,19 @@
 
 #include <linux/mutex.h>
 
+#if defined CONFIG_X86_UV || defined CONFIG_IA64_SGI_UV
 #include <asm/uv/uv.h>
+#define is_uv()		is_uv_system()
+#endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_IA64
+#ifndef is_uv
+#define is_uv()		0
+#endif
+
+#if defined CONFIG_IA64
 #include <asm/system.h>
 #include <asm/sn/arch.h>	/* defines is_shub1() and is_shub2() */
 #define is_shub()	ia64_platform_is("sn2")
-#ifdef CONFIG_IA64_SGI_UV
-#define is_uv()		ia64_platform_is("uv")
-#else
-#define is_uv()		0
-#endif
-#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
-#include <asm/genapic.h>
-#define is_uv()		is_uv_system()
 #endif
 
 #ifndef is_shub1
@@ -44,10 +42,6 @@
 #define is_shub()	0
 #endif
 
-#ifndef is_uv
-#define is_uv()		0
-#endif
-
 #ifdef USE_DBUG_ON
 #define DBUG_ON(condition)	BUG_ON(condition)
 #else

[PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Dean Nelson]

Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().

Signed-off-by: Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>

---

 arch/ia64/include/asm/uv/uv.h  |   13 +++++++++++++
 drivers/misc/sgi-gru/gru.h     |    2 --
 drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufile.c |   18 +++---------------
 drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xp.h       |   22 ++++++++--------------
 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

Index: linux/arch/ia64/include/asm/uv/uv.h
=================================--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ linux/arch/ia64/include/asm/uv/uv.h	2009-02-09 09:18:45.657924900 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+#ifndef _ASM_IA64_UV_UV_H
+#define _ASM_IA64_UV_UV_H
+
+#include <asm/system.h>
+#include <asm/sn/simulator.h>
+
+static inline int is_uv_system(void)
+{
+	/* temporary support for running on hardware simulator */
+	return IS_MEDUSA() || ia64_platform_is("uv");
+}
+
+#endif	/* _ASM_IA64_UV_UV_H */
Index: linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/gru.h
=================================--- linux.orig/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/gru.h	2009-02-09 09:18:43.485658003 -0600
+++ linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/gru.h	2009-02-09 09:18:45.677927344 -0600
@@ -19,8 +19,6 @@
 #ifndef __GRU_H__
 #define __GRU_H__
 
-#include <asm/uv/uv.h>
-
 /*
  * GRU architectural definitions
  */
Index: linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufile.c
=================================--- linux.orig/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufile.c	2009-02-09 09:18:43.485658003 -0600
+++ linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufile.c	2009-02-09 09:18:45.697930179 -0600
@@ -36,23 +36,11 @@
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
 #include <linux/uaccess.h>
+#include <asm/uv/uv.h>
 #include "gru.h"
 #include "grulib.h"
 #include "grutables.h"
 
-#if defined CONFIG_X86_64
-#include <asm/genapic.h>
-#include <asm/irq.h>
-#define IS_UV()		is_uv_system()
-#elif defined CONFIG_IA64
-#include <asm/system.h>
-#include <asm/sn/simulator.h>
-/* temp support for running on hardware simulator */
-#define IS_UV()		IS_MEDUSA() || ia64_platform_is("uv")
-#else
-#define IS_UV()		0
-#endif
-
 #include <asm/uv/uv_hub.h>
 #include <asm/uv/uv_mmrs.h>
 
@@ -381,7 +369,7 @@ static int __init gru_init(void)
 	char id[10];
 	void *gru_start_vaddr;
 
-	if (!IS_UV())
+	if (!is_uv_system())
 		return 0;
 
 #if defined CONFIG_IA64
@@ -451,7 +439,7 @@ static void __exit gru_exit(void)
 	int order = get_order(sizeof(struct gru_state) *
 			      GRU_CHIPLETS_PER_BLADE);
 
-	if (!IS_UV())
+	if (!is_uv_system())
 		return;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < GRU_CHIPLETS_PER_BLADE; i++)
Index: linux/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xp.h
=================================--- linux.orig/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xp.h	2009-02-09 09:18:43.489658800 -0600
+++ linux/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xp.h	2009-02-09 09:19:18.065905314 -0600
@@ -15,21 +15,19 @@
 
 #include <linux/mutex.h>
 
+#if defined CONFIG_X86_UV || defined CONFIG_IA64_SGI_UV
 #include <asm/uv/uv.h>
+#define is_uv()		is_uv_system()
+#endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_IA64
+#ifndef is_uv
+#define is_uv()		0
+#endif
+
+#if defined CONFIG_IA64
 #include <asm/system.h>
 #include <asm/sn/arch.h>	/* defines is_shub1() and is_shub2() */
 #define is_shub()	ia64_platform_is("sn2")
-#ifdef CONFIG_IA64_SGI_UV
-#define is_uv()		ia64_platform_is("uv")
-#else
-#define is_uv()		0
-#endif
-#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
-#include <asm/genapic.h>
-#define is_uv()		is_uv_system()
 #endif
 
 #ifndef is_shub1
@@ -44,10 +42,6 @@
 #define is_shub()	0
 #endif
 
-#ifndef is_uv
-#define is_uv()		0
-#endif
-
 #ifdef USE_DBUG_ON
 #define DBUG_ON(condition)	BUG_ON(condition)
 #else

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0600
Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:

> Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().

Would I be correct in believing that this repairs (and should be folded
into)

  commit 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a
  Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
  Date:   Wed Jan 21 11:30:07 2009 +0100

      x86: uv cleanup, build fix #2

?

(it looks like 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a should be
folded into something else, too.  What hath we wrought?)

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0600
Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:

> Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().

Would I be correct in believing that this repairs (and should be folded
into)

  commit 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a
  Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
  Date:   Wed Jan 21 11:30:07 2009 +0100

      x86: uv cleanup, build fix #2

?

(it looks like 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a should be
folded into something else, too.  What hath we wrought?)

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:

> Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>

Applied, thanks Dean!

Tony, since this breakage is an accidental side-effect of the x86 tree (that
has to be fixed there), mind if we carry it there?

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next

[Ingo Molnar]

* Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:

> Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>

Applied, thanks Dean!

Tony, since this breakage is an accidental side-effect of the x86 tree (that
has to be fixed there), mind if we carry it there?

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Dean Nelson]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:25:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0600
> Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> > Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> > an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().
> 
> Would I be correct in believing that this repairs (and should be folded
> into)
> 
>   commit 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a
>   Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>   Date:   Wed Jan 21 11:30:07 2009 +0100
> 
>       x86: uv cleanup, build fix #2
> 
> ?
>
> (it looks like 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a should be
> folded into something else, too.  What hath we wrought?)

Yes, it does fix an issue introduced by:

   commit: bdbcdd48883940bbd8d17eb01172d58a261a413a
   author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
   date:   Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:26:06 +0000

	x86: uv cleanup

which the commit you mention above attempted to fix.

I'll leave it to you and Ingo to determine whether my patch should be
folded into Ingo's or Tejun's patch.

Ingo, I see that you've applied my patch to your tip tree. What are
your thoughts on Andrew's question?

Thanks,
Dean

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Dean Nelson]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:25:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0600
> Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> > Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> > an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().
> 
> Would I be correct in believing that this repairs (and should be folded
> into)
> 
>   commit 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a
>   Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>   Date:   Wed Jan 21 11:30:07 2009 +0100
> 
>       x86: uv cleanup, build fix #2
> 
> ?
>
> (it looks like 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a should be
> folded into something else, too.  What hath we wrought?)

Yes, it does fix an issue introduced by:

   commit: bdbcdd48883940bbd8d17eb01172d58a261a413a
   author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
   date:   Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:26:06 +0000

	x86: uv cleanup

which the commit you mention above attempted to fix.

I'll leave it to you and Ingo to determine whether my patch should be
folded into Ingo's or Tejun's patch.

Ingo, I see that you've applied my patch to your tip tree. What are
your thoughts on Andrew's question?

Thanks,
Dean

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:25:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0600
> > Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> > > an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().
> > 
> > Would I be correct in believing that this repairs (and should be folded
> > into)
> > 
> >   commit 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a
> >   Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> >   Date:   Wed Jan 21 11:30:07 2009 +0100
> > 
> >       x86: uv cleanup, build fix #2
> > 
> > ?
> >
> > (it looks like 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a should be
> > folded into something else, too.  What hath we wrought?)
> 
> Yes, it does fix an issue introduced by:
> 
>    commit: bdbcdd48883940bbd8d17eb01172d58a261a413a
>    author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>    date:   Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:26:06 +0000
> 
> 	x86: uv cleanup
> 
> which the commit you mention above attempted to fix.
> 
> I'll leave it to you and Ingo to determine whether my patch should be
> folded into Ingo's or Tejun's patch.
> 
> Ingo, I see that you've applied my patch to your tip tree. What are
> your thoughts on Andrew's question?

What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
with the ia64 defconfig.

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next

[Ingo Molnar]

* Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:25:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0600
> > Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> > > an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().
> > 
> > Would I be correct in believing that this repairs (and should be folded
> > into)
> > 
> >   commit 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a
> >   Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> >   Date:   Wed Jan 21 11:30:07 2009 +0100
> > 
> >       x86: uv cleanup, build fix #2
> > 
> > ?
> >
> > (it looks like 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a should be
> > folded into something else, too.  What hath we wrought?)
> 
> Yes, it does fix an issue introduced by:
> 
>    commit: bdbcdd48883940bbd8d17eb01172d58a261a413a
>    author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>    date:   Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:26:06 +0000
> 
> 	x86: uv cleanup
> 
> which the commit you mention above attempted to fix.
> 
> I'll leave it to you and Ingo to determine whether my patch should be
> folded into Ingo's or Tejun's patch.
> 
> Ingo, I see that you've applied my patch to your tip tree. What are
> your thoughts on Andrew's question?

What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
with the ia64 defconfig.

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Dean Nelson]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:05:36PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:25:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0600
> > > Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> > > > an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().
> > > 
> > > Would I be correct in believing that this repairs (and should be folded
> > > into)
> > > 
> > >   commit 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a
> > >   Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > >   Date:   Wed Jan 21 11:30:07 2009 +0100
> > > 
> > >       x86: uv cleanup, build fix #2
> > > 
> > > ?
> > >
> > > (it looks like 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a should be
> > > folded into something else, too.  What hath we wrought?)
> > 
> > Yes, it does fix an issue introduced by:
> > 
> >    commit: bdbcdd48883940bbd8d17eb01172d58a261a413a
> >    author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> >    date:   Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:26:06 +0000
> > 
> > 	x86: uv cleanup
> > 
> > which the commit you mention above attempted to fix.
> > 
> > I'll leave it to you and Ingo to determine whether my patch should be
> > folded into Ingo's or Tejun's patch.
> > 
> > Ingo, I see that you've applied my patch to your tip tree. What are
> > your thoughts on Andrew's question?
> 
> What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
> in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
> with the ia64 defconfig.

The question was the one of folding the patch back. And by your response, I
see we'll be leaving things as they are.

Thanks,
Dean

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Dean Nelson]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:05:36PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:25:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0600
> > > Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> > > > an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().
> > > 
> > > Would I be correct in believing that this repairs (and should be folded
> > > into)
> > > 
> > >   commit 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a
> > >   Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > >   Date:   Wed Jan 21 11:30:07 2009 +0100
> > > 
> > >       x86: uv cleanup, build fix #2
> > > 
> > > ?
> > >
> > > (it looks like 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a should be
> > > folded into something else, too.  What hath we wrought?)
> > 
> > Yes, it does fix an issue introduced by:
> > 
> >    commit: bdbcdd48883940bbd8d17eb01172d58a261a413a
> >    author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> >    date:   Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:26:06 +0000
> > 
> > 	x86: uv cleanup
> > 
> > which the commit you mention above attempted to fix.
> > 
> > I'll leave it to you and Ingo to determine whether my patch should be
> > folded into Ingo's or Tejun's patch.
> > 
> > Ingo, I see that you've applied my patch to your tip tree. What are
> > your thoughts on Andrew's question?
> 
> What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
> in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
> with the ia64 defconfig.

The question was the one of folding the patch back. And by your response, I
see we'll be leaving things as they are.

Thanks,
Dean

RE: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Luck, Tony]

> Tony, since this breakage is an accidental side-effect of the x86 tree (that
> has to be fixed there), mind if we carry it there?

Ingo,

I don't mind at all.

-Tony

RE: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Luck, Tony]

> Tony, since this breakage is an accidental side-effect of the x86 tree (that
> has to be fixed there), mind if we carry it there?

Ingo,

I don't mind at all.

-Tony

RE: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Luck, Tony]

> What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
> in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
> with the ia64 defconfig.

I'm confused by this, as it definitely triggered for me.  Perhaps
my build scripts do things a bit differently.  Essentially I do:

        $ for c in `ls arch/ia64/configs`
        > do
        >       cp arch/ia64/configs/$i .config
        >       yes '' | make oldconfig
        >       make
        > done

Which takes the default answer for any new questions that crop
up.  This enabled the GRU driver in the case of the generic_defconfig,
and so the build failed because of the lack of asm/uv.h

-Tony

RE: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Luck, Tony]

> What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
> in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
> with the ia64 defconfig.

I'm confused by this, as it definitely triggered for me.  Perhaps
my build scripts do things a bit differently.  Essentially I do:

        $ for c in `ls arch/ia64/configs`
        > do
        >       cp arch/ia64/configs/$i .config
        >       yes '' | make oldconfig
        >       make
        > done

Which takes the default answer for any new questions that crop
up.  This enabled the GRU driver in the case of the generic_defconfig,
and so the build failed because of the lack of asm/uv.h

-Tony

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Dean Nelson]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:58:19AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
> > in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
> > with the ia64 defconfig.
> 
> I'm confused by this, as it definitely triggered for me.  Perhaps
> my build scripts do things a bit differently.  Essentially I do:
> 
>         $ for c in `ls arch/ia64/configs`
>         > do
>         >       cp arch/ia64/configs/$i .config
>         >       yes '' | make oldconfig
>         >       make
>         > done
> 
> Which takes the default answer for any new questions that crop
> up.  This enabled the GRU driver in the case of the generic_defconfig,
> and so the build failed because of the lack of asm/uv.h

It always triggers for me as well. I also use generic_defconfig and
request the default for any NEW questions.

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Dean Nelson]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:58:19AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
> > in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
> > with the ia64 defconfig.
> 
> I'm confused by this, as it definitely triggered for me.  Perhaps
> my build scripts do things a bit differently.  Essentially I do:
> 
>         $ for c in `ls arch/ia64/configs`
>         > do
>         >       cp arch/ia64/configs/$i .config
>         >       yes '' | make oldconfig
>         >       make
>         > done
> 
> Which takes the default answer for any new questions that crop
> up.  This enabled the GRU driver in the case of the generic_defconfig,
> and so the build failed because of the lack of asm/uv.h

It always triggers for me as well. I also use generic_defconfig and
request the default for any NEW questions.

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:

> > What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
> > in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
> > with the ia64 defconfig.
> 
> I'm confused by this, as it definitely triggered for me.  Perhaps
> my build scripts do things a bit differently.  Essentially I do:
> 
>         $ for c in `ls arch/ia64/configs`
>         > do
>         >       cp arch/ia64/configs/$i .config
>         >       yes '' | make oldconfig
>         >       make
>         > done
> 
> Which takes the default answer for any new questions that crop
> up.  This enabled the GRU driver in the case of the generic_defconfig,
> and so the build failed because of the lack of asm/uv.h

hm, my build scripts do (in essence):

 make mrproper
 make ARCH=ia64 defconfig

hm, GRU is enabled as a module. I generally build the =y items, i.e. the
vmlinux. There's around 20 thousand modules enabled in various defconfigs,
that's a _lot_ of time to build.

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:

> > What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
> > in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
> > with the ia64 defconfig.
> 
> I'm confused by this, as it definitely triggered for me.  Perhaps
> my build scripts do things a bit differently.  Essentially I do:
> 
>         $ for c in `ls arch/ia64/configs`
>         > do
>         >       cp arch/ia64/configs/$i .config
>         >       yes '' | make oldconfig
>         >       make
>         > done
> 
> Which takes the default answer for any new questions that crop
> up.  This enabled the GRU driver in the case of the generic_defconfig,
> and so the build failed because of the lack of asm/uv.h

hm, my build scripts do (in essence):

 make mrproper
 make ARCH=ia64 defconfig

hm, GRU is enabled as a module. I generally build the =y items, i.e. the
vmlinux. There's around 20 thousand modules enabled in various defconfigs,
that's a _lot_ of time to build.

	Ingo