From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932802AbbFIJOp (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2015 05:14:45 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]:35960 "EHLO mail-wi0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932421AbbFIJOY (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2015 05:14:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150608224749.GB7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1433802288-25508-1-git-send-email-mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> <20150608224749.GB7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:14:23 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Re-enable TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT on ARMv7-M From: Maxime Coquelin To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Arnd Bergmann , =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2015-06-09 0:47 GMT+02:00 Russell King - ARM Linux : > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:24:48AM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >> Commit cb1293e2f594 ("ARM: 8375/1: disable some options on ARMv7-M") causes >> build failure on ARMv7-M machines: >> >> CC arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.s >> In file included from include/linux/sem.h:5:0, >> from include/linux/sched.h:35, >> from arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:14: >> include/linux/rcupdate.h: In function 'rcu_read_lock_sched_held': >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:539:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> return preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled(); >> ^ > > The real solution is to provide a definition _in asm-generic_ for > arch_irqs_disabled(), rather than having almost every arch doing: > > static inline bool arch_irqs_disabled(void) > { > return arch_irqs_disabled_flags(arch_local_save_flags()); > } > > I'm personally refusing to take a patch for ARM which adds yet another > copy of the above. This is, after all, exactly the kind of stuff that > should be in asm-generic, or if not, in include/linux but overridable > by arch stuff. > > We keep going between the two extremes of "lets push lots of stuff into > arch stuff" and "lets try to extract the common bits out of arch code". > > Let's try and settle on one approach, and apply it universally. I agree on the idea but I don't measure all the impacts it would have. > > In the mean time, I think the right answer is to drop Arnd's patch - > subsituting a randconfig build error for a useful-config build error > is not something we want to do - and even partially reverting the > patch results in randconfig build errors returning, so... Ok, should I send a revert, or you can still drop Arnd's patch directly? Thanks, Maxime