[PATCH] ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected

[PATCH] ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected

[Bjarne Steinsbo]

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(-)

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

[PATCH] ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected

[Dave Martin]

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 at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH] ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected

[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?

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 at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>

[PATCH] ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected

[Dave Martin]

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 at lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
>



-- 
Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org>
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/