linux-kernel - RE: linux-next: Tree for June 3 (staging)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:31:21 +0800
From:	"Gao, Yunpeng" <yunpeng.gao@...el.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: linux-next: Tree for June 3 (staging)

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your quick response.

The root cause of the build-errors in ffsport.c is that the kernel block layer APIs are different in linux-next tree (.../linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git) than in Linus' kernel tree (.../linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git).

Yesterday, after modify code in ffsport.c to sync up with the block layer APIs changes, I have make the kernel against linux-next tree and found no build error / warnings.

Then I generated the patch again Linus' kernel tree, tag 'v2.6.30-rc8' and sent the patch to you. This patch uses the new block layer APIs and is target for the linux-next tree.

I guess the below build errors are caused by compiling the patch code in Linus' kernel tree. As the block layer API's in Linus' kernel tree is still the old one, it'll report this kind of 'implicit declaration of function ...' error. I'm sorry for the mis-communication.

Now, I'm a bit confused with the process :-) Which git tree should I select to generate patch against and submit to? The linux-next tree or Linus' kerner tree?

Thanks for your time.

Rgds,
Yunpeng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@...ah.com]
>Sent: 2009年6月5日 1:52
>To: Gao, Yunpeng
>Cc: Greg KH; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 3 (staging)
>
>Are you sure you included the fixed up patch?
>
>With the patch you submitted below, I get the following build errors:
>
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c: In function ‘do_transfer’:
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c:360: error: implicit declaration of
>function ‘blk_rq_pos’
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c:376: error: implicit declaration of
>function ‘blk_rq_cur_sectors’
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c: In function ‘spectra_trans_thread’:
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c:499: error: implicit declaration of
>function ‘blk_fetch_request’
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c:499: warning: assignment makes pointer
>from integer without a cast
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c:515: error: implicit declaration of
>function ‘__blk_end_request_cur’
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c:520: error: implicit declaration of
>function ‘__blk_end_request_all’
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c: In function ‘SBD_setup_device’:
>drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.c:741: error: implicit declaration of
>function ‘blk_queue_logical_block_size’
>make[3]: *** [drivers/staging/mrst_nand/ffsport.o] Error 1
>make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>
>
>I'll just drop this patch for now, can you resend it to me when it is
>fixed up properly?
>
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h