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: <20120104231307.GA4604@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:13:07 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:03:54PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 01:31, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:07:52AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 17:21, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 05:45:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> >> Because of the powerpc problems above, I have used the driver-core tree
> >> >> from next-20111222 for today.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry about all of the problems, we tried to fix everything we could,
> >> > but your merges and cross-builds found stuff we missed :(
> >> >
> >> > Kay, care to send me patches to fix this, and all of the other
> >> > linux-next-reported problems to me so we can get this resolved this
> >> > week?
> >>
> >> I rather don't want to add error checking to stuff that doesn't do it
> >> today. The sysdev stuff never had that forced checks, but the normal
> >> device stuff has.
> >
> > That's fine.
> >
> >> I think the force return value check is really a pretty misguided idea
> >> in general, and it's up to the caller to do these checks and handle
> >> rollbacks, not the driver core, I think.
> >>
> >> Can't we just remove that forced check?
> >
> > Probably, if it fixes these warning-is-an-error problems.  There were
> > other issues with linux-next that were build issues, not just this one
> > from what I recall, that kept Stephen from including the tree in
> > linux-next.  I can bounce them to you if you missed them.
> 
> Oh, I thought that was all: "I fixed it up (see below) and can carry
> the fix as necessary" material.
> 
> I might have missed some stuff, I don't see any others. Care to check
> yours and let me know?

Ok, I think you are right, I've pushed the "remove __must_check" patch
to driver-core-next and hopefully it should all be good now.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ