This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


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

To: "xen-devel" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] xen/next & xen/stable-2.6.32.x+ depends on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS
From: "hojuruku" <hojuruku@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:28:09 +0800
Delivery-date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:28:58 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qq.com; s=s0907; t=1271118492; bh=eXXJfvvtEt9pooZBRAs0uw7WhiZsrwE9iDVcSKuuLjA=; h=X-QQ-ThreadID:X-Originating-IP:X-QQ-mid:X-QQ-STYLE:From:To:Sender: Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date: X-Priority:Message-ID:X-QQ-MIME:X-Mailer:X-QQ-Mailer; b=StV92Ygq9zAHfm21TdlNBEBiSxsM5fHUWWMTWefocG/tfHvmae/0zWKpOjnx0REHo Sx86aQMTYv6dZUcXkh2GVVurZYSeDU6VRcWpun97l8VyL1Qw/Q3IovChf+tkbbj
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
 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;
+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;
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 ;)


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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>