[Xen-bugs] [Bug 1599] New: xen/next & xen/stable-2.6.32.x+ depends on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS

[bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1599

           Summary: xen/next & xen/stable-2.6.32.x+ depends on
                    CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS
           Product: Xen
           Version: unstable
          Platform: x86-64
               URL: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.33/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: Linux-pv_ops dom0
        AssignedTo: xen-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        ReportedBy: hojuruku@xxxxxx


Had no luck putting this on the list so bugzilla will have to do.

The idea is that CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS is going to be depreciated, so not all
people running newer userspace tools are going to choose it. This leads to
compile time errors.

Quick fix: Edit pv_ops KConfig's to depend on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS forcing the
option to be selected.
This will likely be the interim solution because not all ACPI functionality has
been moved to /sys/
Long term fix when CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS is gone...


Message to xen-devel that bounced (new user)
---
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
â??acpi_processor_add_fsâ?? follows non-static declaration
include/acpi/processor.h:242: note: previous declaration of
â??acpi_processor_add_fsâ?? was here
drivers/acpi/processor_core.c:415: error: static declaration of
â??acpi_processor_remove_fsâ?? follows non-static declaration
include/acpi/processor.h:243: note: previous declaration of
â??acpi_processor_remove_fsâ?? 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


-- 
Configure bugmail: 
http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

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