linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] mfd: da9063: Replace model with type

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, 30 May 2018 12:45:55 +0200
From:   Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>
To:     Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
Cc:     kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] mfd: da9063: Replace model with type

On 05/30/2018 07:21 AM, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> Hi, Marek
> 
> On 05/26, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 05/26/2018 11:16 AM, kbuild test robot wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>>
>>> I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
>>>
>>> [auto build test WARNING on ljones-mfd/for-mfd-next]
>>> [also build test WARNING on v4.17-rc6]
>>> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
>>>
>>> url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Marek-Vasut/mfd-da9063-Rename-PMIC_DA9063-to-PMIC_CHIP_ID_DA9063/20180526-162613
>>> base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd.git for-mfd-next
>>> config: x86_64-randconfig-x002-201820 (attached as .config)
>>> compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.3.0-16) 7.3.0
>>> reproduce:
>>>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>>>         make ARCH=x86_64 
>>>
>>> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>>>
>>>    In file included from include/linux/kernel.h:10:0,
>>>                     from drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c:16:
>>>    drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c: In function 'da9063_regulator_probe':
>>>    drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c:744:12: error: 'const struct da9063_dev_model' has no member named 'dev_model'
>>>       if (model->dev_model == da9063->type)
>>>                ^
>>>    include/linux/compiler.h:58:30: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if'
>>>      if (__builtin_constant_p(!!(cond)) ? !!(cond) :   \
>>>                                  ^~~~
>>>>> drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c:744:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
>>>       if (model->dev_model == da9063->type)
>>>       ^~
>>>    drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c:744:12: error: 'const struct da9063_dev_model' has no member named 'dev_model'
>>>       if (model->dev_model == da9063->type)
>>>                ^
>>>    include/linux/compiler.h:58:42: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if'
>>>      if (__builtin_constant_p(!!(cond)) ? !!(cond) :   \
>>>                                              ^~~~
>>>>> drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c:744:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
>>>       if (model->dev_model == da9063->type)
>>>       ^~
>>>    drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c:744:12: error: 'const struct da9063_dev_model' has no member named 'dev_model'
>>>       if (model->dev_model == da9063->type)
>>>                ^
>>>    include/linux/compiler.h:69:16: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if'
>>>       ______r = !!(cond);     \
>>>                    ^~~~
>>>>> drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c:744:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
>>>       if (model->dev_model == da9063->type)
>>>       ^~
>>>    drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c:749:10: error: 'struct da9063' has no member named 'model'
>>>        da9063->model);
>>>              ^~
>>>
>>> vim +/if +744 drivers//regulator/da9063-regulator.c
>>
>> Is it testing this patch without the other patches in the series or at
>> least 1/6 ?
> 
> It was tested with the whole patch series as you can see in https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Marek-Vasut/mfd-da9063-Rename-PMIC_DA9063-to-PMIC_CHIP_ID_DA9063/20180526-162613.

Ha, I see the problem. Thanks for confirming it's checked with the whole
series.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut