linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the origin tree

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:	Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:07:27 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the origin tree

Hi Andrew,

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:14 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:21:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > I can't see what the point of the "pfn" variable is
> 
> This:
> 
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c~a
> +++ a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static int pseries_remove_memblock(unsig
>  	sections_to_remove = (memblock_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) / PAGES_PER_SECTION;
>  	for (i = 0; i < sections_to_remove; i++) {
>  		unsigned long pfn = start_pfn + i * PAGES_PER_SECTION;
> -		ret = __remove_pages(zone, start_pfn,  PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> +		ret = __remove_pages(zone, pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
>  		if (ret)
>  			return ret;
>  	}

Can we get that fix to Linus ASAP, please?

> > and this patch never
> > appeared in linux-next before being merged.  :-(
> 
> It was first sighted October 3.

Yeah, my mistake. But it never made it to linux-next.

> > I have reverted that commit for today.
> > 
> > If this patch truly was authored yesterday (according the Author Date in
> > git), why was it merged yesterday while still under discussion?  And the
> > latest update to it still has this build problem ... did anyone even try
> > to build this for powerpc (since that architecture was obviously
> > affected)?
> 
> Apparently not - the ppc bit was a best-effort fixup for a patch which
> addresses an x86 problem.

Right, and that is one of the reasons we have linux-next - to test for
cross architecture problems.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped