On 26/07/17 01:44, Alex Williamson wrote:

[cc +Alexey, David]

Any comments from the usual suspects for vfio/spapr?  Thanks,

[trying again as mailists rejected the previous response]

Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <redacted>


Having EEH + VFIO_PCI and not having VFIO_SPAPR_EEH does not make practical
sense and won't be seen in the wild so EEH + VFIO should enforce
VFIO_SPAPR_EEH but this is for another patch.

Alex

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:56:38 -0300
Murilo Opsfelder Araújo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 07/18/2017 02:22 PM, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo wrote:

quoted

When CONFIG_EEH=y and CONFIG_VFIO_SPAPR_EEH=n, build fails with the
following:

    drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.o: In function `.vfio_pci_release':
    vfio_pci.c:(.text+0xa98): undefined reference to `.vfio_spapr_pci_eeh_release'
    drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.o: In function `.vfio_pci_open':
    vfio_pci.c:(.text+0x1420): undefined reference to `.vfio_spapr_pci_eeh_open'

In this case, vfio_pci.c should use the empty definitions of
vfio_spapr_pci_eeh_open and vfio_spapr_pci_eeh_release functions.

This patch fixes it by guarding these function definitions with
CONFIG_VFIO_SPAPR_EEH, the symbol that controls whether vfio_spapr_eeh.c is
built, which is where the non-empty versions of these functions are. We need to
make use of IS_ENABLED() macro because CONFIG_VFIO_SPAPR_EEH is a tristate
option.

This issue was found during a randconfig build. Logs are here:

    http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/12982362/

Signed-off-by: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <redacted>
---

Changes from v1:
- Rebased on top of next-20170718.  

Hi, Alex.

Are you applying this?

Thanks!

-- 
Alexey