Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750730AbVLLPII (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:08:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750739AbVLLPII (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:08:08 -0500 Received: from adsl-80.mirage.euroweb.hu ([193.226.228.80]:21509 "EHLO dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750730AbVLLPIH (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:08:07 -0500 To: schwab@suse.de CC: ebiederm@xmission.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, rth@twiddle.net, davej@redhat.com, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, ak@suse.de, ashok.raj@intel.com In-reply-to: (message from Andreas Schwab on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:39:11 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code References: Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:46:57 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 774 Lines: 20 > >> Does powerpc still build? A key question is how do we handle architectures > >> that always want to want to call machine_power_off. > > > > I didn't (and can't) check, but it should. IIRC multiple declaration > > of a variable is OK, as long as at most one has an initializer. > > And as long as you don't build with -fno-common. That seals the argument, since -fno-common is in linux/Makefile. So the patch wants fixing on powerpc, but I don't feel up to the task. Somebody with better knowledge of that arch? Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/