[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPQV+nOTEfeQVwqd8zAP37qS3PrdwFQv1c0AC=nAz3UCemXhSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:39:52 -0500
From: Jonathan Kliegman <kliegs@...omium.org>
To: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modpost: Add flag -f for making section mismatches fatal
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> Dne 3.1.2013 00:56, Rusty Russell napsal(a):
> > Jonathan Kliegman <kliegs@...omium.org> writes:
> >> The section mismatch warning can be easy to miss during the kernel build
> >> process. Allow it to be marked as fatal to be easily caught and prevent
> >> bugs from slipping in.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Kliegman <kliegs@...omium.org>
> >
> > Hmm, a CONFIG option with no Kconfig entry? That seems weird...
>
> With a Kconfig entry, all{mod,yes}configs would start failing. It can be
> enabled with make CONFIG_SECTION_MISMATCH_FATAL=y for now. Maybe it
> could be added to Kconfig with 'depends on n', so that it is documented
> somewhere.
>
Sorry for missing the Kconfig entry. It looks like init/Kconfig in
the "General setup" seems the best fit as that looks like where the
other build options are. If this is ok I'll upload a new version of
the patch with the entry added.
I'm not sure what you mean about configs failing. After adding this
option to init/Kconfig I was able to build fine using old and new
configs with and without the option set. Is there something specific
you'd like me to test for?
> Michal
--
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