Maxime Coquelin mcoquelin.stm32 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 07:42:30 PDT 2015

Hi Daniel,

2015-06-09 13:41 GMT+02:00 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson at linaro.org>:
> On 09/06/15 10:14, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>> The real solution is to provide a definition _in asm-generic_ for
>>> arch_irqs_disabled(), rather than having almost every arch doing:
>>> static inline bool arch_irqs_disabled(void)
>>> {
>>>          return arch_irqs_disabled_flags(arch_local_save_flags());
>>> }
>>> I'm personally refusing to take a patch for ARM which adds yet another
>>> copy of the above.  This is, after all, exactly the kind of stuff that
>>> should be in asm-generic, or if not, in include/linux but overridable
>>> by arch stuff.
>>> We keep going between the two extremes of "lets push lots of stuff into
>>> arch stuff" and "lets try to extract the common bits out of arch code".
>>> Let's try and settle on one approach, and apply it universally.

> Does the following patch, which makes the arch_irqs_disabled()
> implementation from asm-generic available on arm, fix the build for you?

I confirm it fixes the build on Russell's for-next branch with efm32_defconfig.
I have no efm32 HW to test it though.

> I've only done a real quick 'n dirty check for regression:
> multi_v7_defconfig still works ;-)
> If the patch is useful I can test it a bit harder...

I can also test it this evening with my stm32 config.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list