Re: fixing 2.6.10 UP builds

From: Jesse Barnes <>
Date: 2005-01-13 11:50:13
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:34 pm, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> arch/ia64/sn/kernel/sn2/sn_hwperf.c: In function `sn_hwperf_op_cpu':
> >> arch/ia64/sn/kernel/sn2/sn_hwperf.c:360: warning: implicit declaration
> >> of function `smp_call_function_single'
> >
> >Looks like we need a !CONFIG_SMP version of smp_call_function_single.
> >include/linux/smp.h has a non-smp version of smp_call_function
> >that just returns 0, should smp_call_function_single do the same thing?
> That would make the warning go away, but it isn't obvious to me
> that you'd end up with code that did the right thing.  Looking
> at the bigger picture, just what is sn_hwperf_op_cpu() supposed
> to do in the UP case?

It's supposed to make a SAL call for the CPU specified in the op_arg.  Seems 
like smp_call_function_single should make the specified call unconditionally 
on CPU 0?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Wed Jan 12 19:56:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:34 EST