Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754829AbZJ1QYW (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754361AbZJ1QYV (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:21 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:39350 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752833AbZJ1QYT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:19 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,640,1249282800"; d="scan'208";a="462305269" From: "Luck, Tony" To: Tejun Heo CC: Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , akpm Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:24:22 -0700 Subject: RE: [PATCH -next] ia64/sn: fix percpu warnings Thread-Topic: [PATCH -next] ia64/sn: fix percpu warnings Thread-Index: AcpX37S77hX0ZT0TQtWZ0pCBEMZV4gACUKjw Message-ID: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA3E34C0108@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <20091014163445.f0441473.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091014151003.0ef42973.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <4AD67C05.2030201@kernel.org> <12c511ca0910261124p64f2ad5emc88d00b9957482b3@mail.gmail.com> <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA3E345953E@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <4AE85D28.90809@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4AE85D28.90809@kernel.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1045 Lines: 31 > Umm... the correct correct declaration and definition would be > > DECLARE_PER_CPU(short [MAX_COMPACT_NODES], __sn_cnodeide_to_nasid); > > and > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(short [MAX_COMPACT_NODES], __sn_cnodeide_to_nasid); > > So that the first part contains full type. Doing it the other way > might cause problems if the __weak trick is turned on. That's what Randy's patch uses ... but doing it the "right" way gives me the "has no CRC!" warning. This seems to be a feature of exported per cpu arrays. If I hack up a driver to make use of softirq_work_list, I see a similar no CRC warning for it. Is this problem in the ia64 tool chain[1]? Or do other architectures have problems with exported per cpu arrays? -Tony [1] My default toolchain is uses gcc 4.1.2. But 4.4.1 has the same behavior. -- 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/