Re: [Xen-devel] linux-next: Tree for Oct 24 (xen)

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 24.10.12 at 23:33, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 10/23/2012 09:19 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi all,
> >> 
> >> Changes since 201201023:
> >> 
> > 
> > on x86_64:
> > 
> > drivers/built-in.o: In function `dbgp_reset_prep':
> > (.text+0xb96b5): undefined reference to `xen_dbgp_reset_prep'
> > drivers/built-in.o: In function `dbgp_external_startup':
> > (.text+0xb9d95): undefined reference to `xen_dbgp_external_startup'
> > 
> > 
> > Full randconfig file is attached.
> 
> So this is because with !USB_SUPPORT but EARLY_PRINTK_DBGP
> dbgp_reset_prep() and dbgp_external_startup() get pointlessly
> defined and exported. This got broken by the merge
> recommendation for the ARM side changes (originally compilation
> of drivers/xen/dbgp.c depended on just CONFIG_XEN_DOM0).
> 
> >From my pov, fixing the USB side would be the clean solution (i.e.
> putting those function definitions inside a CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT
> conditional).
>
> The alternative of a smaller change would be to extend the
> conditional around the respective xen_dbgp_...() declarations
> in include/linux/usb/ehci_def.h to become
> 
> #if defined(CONFIG_XEN_DOM0) && defined(CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT)
> 
> Please advise towards your preference.

I think that your first suggestion is the right one.


Otherwise we could also make drivers/xen/dbgp.c compile if
CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK_DBGP rather than CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT.
I think that it would create fewer maintenance pains if dbgp_reset_prep
and dbgp_external_startup had the same compile requirements as their xen
counterparts (aside from Xen support of course).

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel