linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (wireless tree related)

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:	Thu, 12 May 2011 10:22:20 -0700
From:	Javier Cardona <javier@...ybit.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devel@...ts.open80211s.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (wireless
 tree related)

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 21:37:16 -0700 Javier Cardona <javier@...ybit.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> > Hi John,
>> >
>> > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (i386 defconfig)
>> > failed like this:
>> >
>> > net/mac80211/cfg.c: In function 'sta_apply_parameters':
>> > net/mac80211/cfg.c:746: error: 'struct sta_info' has no member named 'plink_state'
>>
>> Sorry, I just saw this.  My apologies.  The fixup is valid but I'm
>> trying to understand why it is needed.
>> ieee80211_vif_is_mesh(&sdata->vif) compiles to 'false' when
>> CONFIG_MAC80211_MESH is not defined... wouldn't the compiler remove
>> that dead code? (Obviously it did not...)
>
> The compiler will elide that code but only after compiling it, so the
> code still has to be correct.

Thanks for the explanation.

>> Anyway, given that this is necessary, it's probably cleaner to extend
>> the #ifdef block to the entire body of the outer if as follows:
>
> I think you have the #ifdef one line too low.

My intent was to have the #endif one line above, but either way works.
 That's the problem of preparing patches on pajamas.
How can I help at this point?  Would resubmitting the patch help or
just add noise?

Cheers,

Javier

> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
>



-- 
Javier Cardona
cozybit Inc.
http://www.cozybit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/