Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755153AbZJ1QhN (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:37:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755116AbZJ1QhM (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:37:12 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:57357 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755051AbZJ1QhL (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:37:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4AE87344.6030708@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:37:24 +0100 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luck, Tony" CC: Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , akpm Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] ia64/sn: fix percpu warnings 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> <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA3E34C0108@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA3E34C0108@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 993 Lines: 33 Hello, Luck, Tony wrote: > That's what Randy's patch uses ... but doing it the "right" way gives > me the "has no CRC!" warning. Ah, right. I got confused. > 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? kern/softirq.c has the followings. DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct list_head [NR_SOFTIRQS], softirq_work_list); EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(softirq_work_list); and it doesn't cause any warning on x86 neither does it on ia64 with defconfig. softirq_work_list doesn't trigger any warning there, right? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/