thr3ads.net - Xen devel - [Xen-devel] xen/next & xen/stable-2.6.32.x+ depends on CONFIG_ACPI

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

hojuruku

2010-Apr-13 00:23 UTC

[Xen-devel] xen/next & xen/stable-2.6.32.x+ depends on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS

Hello Devs,

I've been making some gentoo ebuilds for the mercurial version of xen
because I just couldn't wait to gentooify Xen 4.0

I came into trouble compiling the kernel and I worked out what was wrong....

Here's the error I got for the sake of completeness:
drivers/acpi/processor_core.c:411: error: static declaration of
‘acpi_processor_add_fs’ follows non-static declaration
include/acpi/processor.h:242: note: previous declaration of
‘acpi_processor_add_fs’ was here
drivers/acpi/processor_core.c:415: error: static declaration of
‘acpi_processor_remove_fs’ follows non-static declaration
include/acpi/processor.h:243: note: previous declaration of
‘acpi_processor_remove_fs’ was here
make[2]: *** [drivers/acpi/processor_core.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [drivers/acpi] Error 2
make: *** [drivers] Error 2

Here we have a depend on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS at build time to include the structs
needed for xen's new ACPI code.
http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/v2.6/32-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
------
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS
 static struct proc_dir_entry *acpi_processor_dir = NULL;
 
 static int acpi_processor_info_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *offset)
@@ -388,7 +392,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_add_fs(struct acpi_device *device)
       return -EIO;
    return 0;
 }
-
 static int acpi_processor_remove_fs(struct acpi_device *device)
 {
 @@ -405,6 +408,16 @@ static int acpi_processor_remove_fs(struct acpi_device
*device)
     return 0;
 }
+#else
+static inline int acpi_processor_add_fs(struct acpi_device *device)
+{
+   return 0;
+}
+static inline int acpi_processor_remove_fs(struct acpi_device *device)
+{
+   return 0;
+}
+#endif
---------
Some people who are just sysadmins not kernel hackers are going to not choose
depreciated options if they are running "Bleeding Edge" as
/proc/acpi/* is "depreciated":
http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/ACPI_PROCFS.html

I hope I helped someone sharing for a change ;)

Cheers,

Luke McKee
Alpha and Omega of Thought Crime Law
First Accused of the Crime of Listening (60C NSW Crimes Act) - google/youtube
burnpassport.mp4 for the lowdown






_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

hojuruku

2010-Apr-13 00:28 UTC

head link

[Xen-devel] xen/next & xen/stable-2.6.32.x+ depends on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS

Hello Devs & Friends,

I've been making some gentoo ebuilds for the mercurial version of xen
because I just couldn't wait to gentooify Xen 4.0

I came into trouble compiling the kernel and I worked out what was wrong....

Here's the error I got for the sake of completeness:
drivers/acpi/processor_core.c:411: error: static declaration of
‘acpi_processor_add_fs’ follows non-static declaration
include/acpi/processor.h:242: note: previous declaration of
‘acpi_processor_add_fs’ was here
drivers/acpi/processor_core.c:415: error: static declaration of
‘acpi_processor_remove_fs’ follows non-static declaration
include/acpi/processor.h:243: note: previous declaration of
‘acpi_processor_remove_fs’ was here
make[2]: *** [drivers/acpi/processor_core.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [drivers/acpi] Error 2
make: *** [drivers] Error 2

Here we have a depend on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS at build time to include the structs
needed for xen's new ACPI code.
http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/v2.6/32-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
------
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS
 static struct proc_dir_entry *acpi_processor_dir = NULL;
 
 static int acpi_processor_info_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *offset)
@@ -388,7 +392,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_add_fs(struct acpi_device *device)
       return -EIO;
    return 0;
 }
-
 static int acpi_processor_remove_fs(struct acpi_device *device)
 {
 @@ -405,6 +408,16 @@ static int acpi_processor_remove_fs(struct acpi_device
*device)
     return 0;
 }
+#else
+static inline int acpi_processor_add_fs(struct acpi_device *device)
+{
+   return 0;
+}
+static inline int acpi_processor_remove_fs(struct acpi_device *device)
+{
+   return 0;
+}
+#endif
---------
Some people who are just sysadmins not kernel hackers are going to not choose
depreciated options if they are running "Bleeding Edge" as
/proc/acpi/* is "depreciated":
http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/ACPI_PROCFS.html

I hope I helped someone sharing for a change ;)

Cheers,

Luke McKee
Alpha and Omega of Thought Crime Law
First Accused of the Crime of Listening (60C NSW Crimes Act) - google
burnpassport.mp4 for the lowdown

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Xen devel - Apr 2010 - xen/next & xen/stable-2.6.32.x+ depends on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS

[Xen-devel] xen/next & xen/stable-2.6.32.x+ depends on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS

[Xen-devel] xen/next & xen/stable-2.6.32.x+ depends on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS