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

quoted

quoted

On 25.10.12 at 15:46, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:48:30AM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

On 24.10.12 at 23:33, Randy Dunlap [off-list ref] wrote:

On 10/23/2012 09:19 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

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).

quoted

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.

Can you guys spin up a patch pls and make sure it does not break
compilation. Thx.

I'd really like to hear Greg's opinion on which route to take before
pointlessly trying the other one.

Jan