On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:25 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for testing Andrew's fixes.
I haven't actually taken any from him. I just started afresh. > I am wondering about what happened to > the Powerpc recursive include problems Andrew experienced. Quoting him : > > "OK, I fixed eight separate compile errors in this patch series and > now powerpc is being very ugly with a twisty maze of include > dependencies. > > I'm giving up. Someone should publish a suite of cross-compilers for us > so stuff like this doesn't need to happen." > > I see that you have removed the include <asm/atomic.h> from bitops.h and > system.h in powerpc. If it compiles on every architectures, then it's a > good approach. Yeah, I fiddled around with those powerpc headers a bit until it stopped whining. Maybe the powerpc folks ought to eyeball it a bit, but it build a kernel image here. > I planned to post a new patch which uses macros for cmpxchg and xchg in > asm-generic/atomic.h instead of inline functions. It would remove the > dependency on system.h. However, if your modifications work well on > every architecture, my fix might not be needed. Anyone has a preferred > solution ? I have not been able to setup my cross-compiler test bench > yet due to some hardware issues and waited for it before I released > further fixes, but if you want to try my macro-based fix, I could post > it. Whatever people want; inlines are generally preferred due to the extra type checking. I just needed atomic_long_cmpxchg to work so I kicked your patches about till they compiled. > And about the alpha build, Does the assembler errors also happen without > this patch ? Yes. Something fishy going on there... gcc-4.1.1 + binutils-2.17 Compiler seems to build fine, but kernel code makes it go belly up. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
