Fix some problems found by the kbuild test robot.
Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Hedi Berriche <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv.h | 2 --
arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c | 1 -
arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_nmi.c | 9 ++++-----
3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- linux.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv.h
+++ linux/arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv.h
@@ -12,7 +12,6 @@ extern enum uv_system_type get_uv_system
extern int is_uv_system(void);
extern void uv_cpu_init(void);
extern void uv_nmi_init(void);
-extern void uv_register_nmi_notifier(void);
extern void uv_system_init(void);
extern const struct cpumask *uv_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
struct mm_struct *mm,
@@ -26,7 +25,6 @@ static inline enum uv_system_type get_uv
static inline int is_uv_system(void) { return 0; }
static inline void uv_cpu_init(void) { }
static inline void uv_system_init(void) { }
-static inline void uv_register_nmi_notifier(void) { }
static inline const struct cpumask *
uv_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask, struct mm_struct *mm,
unsigned long start, unsigned long end, unsigned int cpu)
--- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c
+++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c
@@ -980,7 +980,6 @@ void __init uv_system_init(void)
uv_nmi_setup();
uv_cpu_init();
uv_scir_register_cpu_notifier();
- uv_register_nmi_notifier();
proc_mkdir("sgi_uv", NULL);
/* register Legacy VGA I/O redirection handler */
--- linux.orig/arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_nmi.c
+++ linux/arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_nmi.c
@@ -74,7 +74,6 @@ static atomic_t uv_in_nmi;
static atomic_t uv_nmi_cpu = ATOMIC_INIT(-1);
static atomic_t uv_nmi_cpus_in_nmi = ATOMIC_INIT(-1);
static atomic_t uv_nmi_slave_continue;
-static atomic_t uv_nmi_kexec_failed;
static cpumask_var_t uv_nmi_cpu_mask;
/* Values for uv_nmi_slave_continue */
@@ -504,6 +503,7 @@ static void uv_nmi_touch_watchdogs(void)
}
#if defined(CONFIG_KEXEC)
+static atomic_t uv_nmi_kexec_failed;
static void uv_nmi_kdump(int cpu, int master, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
/* Call crash to dump system state */
@@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ int uv_handle_nmi(unsigned int reason, s
/*
* NMI handler for pulling in CPUs when perf events are grabbing our NMI
*/
-int uv_handle_nmi_ping(unsigned int reason, struct pt_regs *regs)
+static int uv_handle_nmi_ping(unsigned int reason, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
int ret;
@@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ int uv_handle_nmi_ping(unsigned int reas
return ret;
}
-void uv_register_nmi_notifier(void)
+static void uv_register_nmi_notifier(void)
{
if (register_nmi_handler(NMI_UNKNOWN, uv_handle_nmi, 0, "uv"))
pr_warn("UV: NMI handler failed to register\n");
@@ -695,6 +695,5 @@ void uv_nmi_setup(void)
uv_hub_nmi_per(cpu) = uv_hub_nmi_list[nid];
}
BUG_ON(!alloc_cpumask_var(&uv_nmi_cpu_mask, GFP_KERNEL));
+ uv_register_nmi_notifier();
}
-
-
--
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:24:09PM -0600, Mike Travis wrote:
> Fix some problems found by the kbuild test robot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Hedi Berriche <[email protected]>
In general it is best to actually mention the issues the patch cures,
otherwise review is impossible, /me stares hard at Hedi.
On 1/14/2014 3:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:24:09PM -0600, Mike Travis wrote:
>> Fix some problems found by the kbuild test robot.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Hedi Berriche <[email protected]>
>
> In general it is best to actually mention the issues the patch cures,
> otherwise review is impossible, /me stares hard at Hedi.
>
I can send an updated patch if required? The issues were
pretty trivial so I didn't think more info than the patch
itself was needed.
Hopefully I don't get a lot more in the future (this was my
first time), should I include the actual tipbot messages?
Thanks.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:27:46AM -0800, Mike Travis wrote:
>
>
> On 1/14/2014 3:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:24:09PM -0600, Mike Travis wrote:
> >> Fix some problems found by the kbuild test robot.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <[email protected]>
> >> Reviewed-by: Hedi Berriche <[email protected]>
> >
> > In general it is best to actually mention the issues the patch cures,
> > otherwise review is impossible, /me stares hard at Hedi.
> >
>
> I can send an updated patch if required? The issues were
> pretty trivial so I didn't think more info than the patch
> itself was needed.
It makes it impossible to say if what you did corresponds with what you
meant to do; let alone say if its the 'correct' way.
> Hopefully I don't get a lot more in the future (this was my
> first time), should I include the actual tipbot messages?
Sure.