linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.30-rc2: [PATCH] ARM OABI compatibility: fix build error

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: <20090415093519.GC12921@traven>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:35:19 +0200
From:	Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias@...hlcke.net>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.30-rc2: [PATCH] ARM OABI compatibility: fix build
	error

El Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:29:42AM +0100 Russell King - ARM Linux ha dit:

> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:12:23AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > El Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:03:07AM +0100 Russell King - ARM Linux ha dit:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:33:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > > Building for ARM with CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT enabled fails due to a
> > > > missing include:
> > > 
> > > Yes, lots of people have been whinging about this over the last six days,
> > > but I'm only just catching up since returning from an Easter break.
> > > 
> > > Does anyone know /when/ this breakage happened, or even better what caused
> > > it?
> > 
> > a week ago i build v2.6.30-rc1 based on the same .config without
> > running into this issue. if i find some time i'll try bisecting it
> 
> Hmm, I think it's caused by 47788c58e66c050982241d9a05eb690daceb05a9.

you're right, bitsecting just pointed me to this commit
 
> The commit message looks rather interesting, including:
> 
>     arch/ia64/ia32/ia32priv.h:290:1: warning: "elf_check_arch" redefined
>     arch/ia64/include/asm/elf.h:19:1: warning: this is the location of the previous definition
> 
> surely the right answer is to only have _one_ definition of this thing,
> rather than two which may be different?  IOW, how do you know for certain
> which definition gets used where.
> 
> Not sure that I totally agree with the rationale in this commit, but I
> guess we have to live with it because it's x86.
> 
> Now, others have been putting out patches to solve the ARM build problem
> caused by the above commit, including one which includes linux/slab.h
> instead of linux/mm.h.  That seems to be a better fix than needlessly
> including lots of other stuff via linux/mm.h.  I notice that akpm picked
> up the linux/slab.h version yesterday.

i agree that linux/slab.h is preferable to linux/mm.h

-- 
Matthias Kaehlcke
Embedded Linux Engineer
Barcelona

                       El camino se hace al andar
                           (Antonio Machado)
                                                                 .''`.
    using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org  : :'  :
                                                                `. `'`
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4                  `-
--
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/