On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:11:07 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > i have triggered this and fixed it the right way - see the patch
> > > below. This fixes the 2.6.24-rc1 build error.
> >
> > and this followup patch is needed too if my patch is applied.
>
> plus the patch below is needed too in addition.
>
> Ingo
Hi,
I'm still hitting this build error. Are these 3 patches not yet
merged??
Thanks.
> ------------->
> Subject: x86: fix build error in arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> nmi_cpu_busy() must be available on !SMP too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c
> +++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c
> @@ -53,13 +53,13 @@ static int unknown_nmi_panic_callback(st
>
> static int endflag __initdata = 0;
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> /* The performance counters used by NMI_LOCAL_APIC don't trigger when
> * the CPU is idle. To make sure the NMI watchdog really ticks on all
> * CPUs during the test make them busy.
> */
> static __init void nmi_cpu_busy(void *data)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> local_irq_enable_in_hardirq();
> /* Intentionally don't use cpu_relax here. This is
> to make sure that the performance counter really ticks,
> @@ -69,8 +69,8 @@ static __init void nmi_cpu_busy(void *da
> care if they get somewhat less cycles. */
> while (endflag == 0)
> mb();
> -}
> #endif
> +}
>
> static int __init check_nmi_watchdog(void)
> {
> -
---
~Randy
-
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/
