The following trivial patch adds back <asm/system.h> and
<linux/kernel.h> to <linux/interrupt.h>. Without it,
<linux/interrupt.h> is relying on <asm/system.h> to be implicitly
included for smb_mb to be defined, and <linux/linkage.h> to be implicitly
included for asmlinkage/FASTCALL/etc.
Apparently RMK sent a similar patch, which did not add in
<linux/linkage.h>. That patch is incomplete since <linux/interrupt.h>
directly uses FASTCALL, asmlinkage, etc, and on some arches
<linux/linkage.h> will not be implicitly included.
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
===== include/linux/interrupt.h 1.17 vs edited =====
--- 1.17/include/linux/interrupt.h Sun Nov 17 09:23:25 2002
+++ edited/include/linux/interrupt.h Tue Nov 19 11:35:47 2002
@@ -3,11 +3,13 @@
#define _LINUX_INTERRUPT_H
#include <linux/config.h>
+#include <linux/linkage.h>
#include <linux/bitops.h>
#include <asm/atomic.h>
#include <asm/hardirq.h>
#include <asm/ptrace.h>
#include <asm/softirq.h>
+#include <asm/system.h>
struct irqaction {
void (*handler)(int, void *, struct pt_regs *);
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:21:32AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> The following trivial patch adds back <asm/system.h> and
> <linux/kernel.h> to <linux/interrupt.h>. Without it,
> <linux/interrupt.h> is relying on <asm/system.h> to be implicitly
> included for smb_mb to be defined, and <linux/linkage.h> to be implicitly
> included for asmlinkage/FASTCALL/etc.
>
> Apparently RMK sent a similar patch, which did not add in
This bit is a myth.
--
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:55:52PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:21:32AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > The following trivial patch adds back <asm/system.h> and
> > <linux/kernel.h> to <linux/interrupt.h>. Without it,
> > <linux/interrupt.h> is relying on <asm/system.h> to be implicitly
> > included for smb_mb to be defined, and <linux/linkage.h> to be implicitly
> > included for asmlinkage/FASTCALL/etc.
> >
> > Apparently RMK sent a similar patch, which did not add in
>
> This bit is a myth.
Well I blame Pete then. :)
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/