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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:04:40 +0000
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wen Xiong <wenxiong@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 11:35 -0600, Brian King wrote:
> On 01/11/2013 10:05 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 03:37:17PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 
> > This change should be pushed to Linus in time for 3.8-final, so there
> > should not be any bisect issues.
> 
> We can do this either way.
> 
> James - what is your preference? Drop everything and do a resend of the
> entire series or delta patches on top of what is currently in your tree?

Drop everything and resend still, I think.  There's still a rebase
problem, because the merge failure will happen if I rebase the misc tree
to beyond Greg's merge point and I'd rather not have to worry about it.

Thanks,

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/