linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the scsi tree

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: <1357918637.3065.22.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:37:17 +0000
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wen Xiong <wenxiong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the scsi tree

On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 09:27 -0600, Brian King wrote:
> It looks like this was a due to the fact that the new patches
> added __devinit tags in the same merge window the __devinit tag
> itself was getting removed.

Not exactly.  The patch which makes them nops went into 3.8.  Now
there's a patch queued in, Gregs tree I presume, to remove them all and
the #defines which causes the compile failure.

> As to the sparse warnings, this patch fixed the ones that
> were actual bugs in the new code, although we could have
> made that more clear in the patch description.
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=135716576204083&w=2

Ah, thanks ... I've been on holiday for a while, so I did miss that.

> There is one outstanding issue I am aware of which was an
> array bounds compiler warning which looks to be a misdetection
> by the compiler. Wendy and I discussed adding a BUG_ON
> to stop the compiler from complaining.
> 
> Wendy - lets queue these two changes up ASAP. They should both
> be very simple changes.

If it's a simple gcc bug, just ignore it.

I do need you to redo the patches to remove the __dev annotations,
though.  We can't risk introducing a bisect killing compile breakage if
Greg's tree merges before mine in the next merge window.

James


--
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/