From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756245AbbHFVKr (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:10:47 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:41451 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755656AbbHFVKq (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:10:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:10:45 -0700 From: Greg KH To: "K. Y. Srinivasan" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, vkuznets@redhat.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, haiyangz@microsoft.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] X86: mshyperv.c: Fix a compilation issue. Message-ID: <20150806211045.GA18439@kroah.com> References: <1438897284-4274-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1438897284-4274-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23+102 (2ca89bed6448) (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:41:24PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > Building with a random configuration file, this build failure > was reported: > > arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `hv_machine_crash_shutdown': > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c:112: undefined > reference to `native_machine_crash_shutdown' > > This patch fixes the problem > > Reported-by: Jim Davis > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c > index f794bfa..0faed5e0 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c > @@ -109,7 +109,9 @@ static void hv_machine_crash_shutdown(struct pt_regs *regs) > { > if (hv_crash_handler) > hv_crash_handler(regs); > +#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE > native_machine_crash_shutdown(regs); > +#endif Why is kexec the factor here? And if it really does, can't it just be CONFIG_KEXEC, or, can kexec provide a "dummy" inline function so that you don't have to have a #ifdef in a .c file? thanks, greg k-h