linux-kernel - Re: [BUILD_FAILURE] 2.6.25-rc2-mm1

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]

Message-ID: <29495f1d0802221012o72fc01beq86affe4b15c20eaf@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:12:15 -0800
From:	"Nish Aravamudan" <nish.aravamudan@...il.com>
To:	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	"Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"Kamalesh Babulal" <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	"Andy Whitcroft" <apw@...dowen.org>
Subject: Re: [BUILD_FAILURE] 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 - Build Failure at acpi_os

On 2/22/08, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:38:52PM -0800, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
>  > On 2/21/08, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
>  > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
>  > >  > On 2/20/08, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> wrote:
>  > >  > > On Saturday 16 February 2008 14:47, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
>  > >  > >  > Hi Andrew,
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > The 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 kernel with randconfig build option, fails
>  > >  > >  > to build on x86_64 machine
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  >   CC      drivers/acpi/osl.o
>  > >  > >  > drivers/acpi/osl.c:60:38: error: empty filename in #include
>  > >  > >  > drivers/acpi/osl.c: In function 'acpi_os_table_override':
>  > >  > >  > drivers/acpi/osl.c:399: error: 'AmlCode' undeclared (first use in this function)
>  > >  > >  > drivers/acpi/osl.c:399: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
>  > >  > >  > drivers/acpi/osl.c:399: error: for each function it appears in.)
>  > >  > >  > make[2]: *** [drivers/acpi/osl.o] Error 1
>  > >  > >  > make[1]: *** [drivers/acpi] Error 2
>  > >  > >  > make: *** [drivers] Error 2
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > #
>  > >  > >  > # Automatically generated make config: don't edit
>  > >  > >  > # Linux kernel version: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1
>  > >  > >  > # Sun Feb 17 08:07:17 2008
>  > >  > >  > #
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > > CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_DSDT=y
>  > >  > >  > CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_DSDT_FILE=""
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > garbage in, garbage out.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > garbage explicitly *allowed* by Kconfig in this case, though.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > >  If you don't give this build option a file name where AmlCode lives,
>  > >  > >  then the build will be unable to find AmlCode[].
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/overridingDSDT.php
>  > >  >
>  > >  > So we have a .config option whose sole purpose is to use another
>  > >  > .config option? That seems ... less than ideal. Is there not some
>  > >  > Kconfig voodoo we can do to only require the one option? Maybe
>  > >  > something like how CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE is done? Adding Sam to the
>  > >  > Cc, in case he has any ideas.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Make sure STANDALONE is y for your randconfig builds.
>  > >  See README for examples.
>  >
>  > Hrm, if this is needed for randconfig to work, perhaps randconfig
>  > itself should somehow be specifying it?
>  >
>  > >  STANALONE is there exactly to prevent the above but we cannot
>  > >  control randconfig.
>  >
>  > While setting STANDALONE does fix the above, it doesn't answer the
>  > more basic question I had -- do we really need both .config options in
>  > this case? If it's simply a case of "That's how it is, won't be fixed,
>  > there are higher priorities", that's good enough by me. Just seems a
>  > shame that we have an option to enable another option, which is
>  > required for the first option to be sensible -- seems like we should
>  > only need the second option...
>
>
> I really do not see what problem you are trying to address.
>
>  STANDALONE is there as an easy way to turn of the options that requires
>  sensible input to make a kernel compile.
>
>  And that makes _perfect_ sense when you do randconfig builds.

Yes it does. As I said above I'm *not* arguing about using STANDALONE
for randconfig builds.

What I was doing, perhaps unclearly, was asking if there was a real
Kconfig need to have both CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_DSDT and
CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_DSDT_FILE, when the latter *only* is visible with
the former and the former *only* makes sense with the latter. Couldn't
we just have CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_DSDT_FILE and check that in the code?
Why do we need a boolean option to make another string option
available?

Thanks,
Nish
--
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/