[PATCH] ARM: mm/alignment.c: Fix build breakage when CONFIG_PROC_FS is not selected

[Bjarne Steinsbo]

Dave,

If it's up to me, I would say leave it as it is.  I'm all for changing
the code to logically group similar functions, but I feel that should
be a different patch.  One for you, maybe?

BR,

Bjarne Steinsbo

a) That would produce a bigger patch, and
b) Moving code around to logically group similar functions is a different patch

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Dave Martin <dave.martin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 02:51:48PM +0200, Bjarne Steinsbo wrote:
>> Compiling mm/alignment.c without CONFIG_PROC_FS selected fails with
>> undefined cpu_is_v6_unaligned() and safe_usermode().
>>
>> Move #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, including definition of usermode_action[],
>> further down to avoid this problem.
>
> Those two functions were never supposed to be inside the #ifdef --
> my bad.  Thanks for spotting it.
>
> Acked-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin at linaro.org>
>
> Alternatively, it may be tidier to move cpu_is_v6_unaligned() and
> safe_usermode() alongside the other static functions, just before
> do_alignment_finish_ldst().
>
> I leave it up to you to decide whether you prefer that; either fix
> is valid.
>
> Cheers
> ---Dave
>
>>
>> Cc: Russell King <linux at arm.linux.org.uk>
>> Signed-off-by: Bjarne Steinsbo <bsteinsbo at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/mm/alignment.c |   20 ++++++++++----------
>>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c
>> index cfbcf8b..c335c76 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c
>> @@ -86,16 +86,6 @@ core_param(alignment, ai_usermode, int, 0600);
>>  #define UM_FIXUP     (1 << 1)
>>  #define UM_SIGNAL    (1 << 2)
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
>> -static const char *usermode_action[] = {
>> -     "ignored",
>> -     "warn",
>> -     "fixup",
>> -     "fixup+warn",
>> -     "signal",
>> -     "signal+warn"
>> -};
>> -
>>  /* Return true if and only if the ARMv6 unaligned access model is in use. */
>>  static bool cpu_is_v6_unaligned(void)
>>  {
>> @@ -123,6 +113,16 @@ static int safe_usermode(int new_usermode, bool warn)
>>       return new_usermode;
>>  }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
>> +static const char *usermode_action[] = {
>> +     "ignored",
>> +     "warn",
>> +     "fixup",
>> +     "fixup+warn",
>> +     "signal",
>> +     "signal+warn"
>> +};
>> +
>>  static int alignment_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>>  {
>>       seq_printf(m, "User:\t\t%lu\n", ai_user);
>> --
>> 1.7.1
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>