linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.10.6-rt3

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]

Date:	Fri, 16 Aug 2013 09:01:51 +0200
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
CC:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@...ma.Stanford.EDU>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.10.6-rt3

On 08/15/2013 09:22 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:42:55 -0700
> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@...ma.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> 
>> On 08/12/2013 09:34 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> Dear RT folks!
>>>
>>> I'm pleased to announce the v3.10.6-rt3 patch set.
>>
>> I'm getting this when trying to build:
>>
>> drivers/md/bcache/request.c: In function 'cached_dev_write_complete':
>> drivers/md/bcache/request.c:1008:2: error: implicit declaration of 
>> function 'up_read_non_owner' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>    up_read_non_owner(&dc->writeback_lock);
>>    ^
>> drivers/md/bcache/request.c: In function 'request_write':
>> drivers/md/bcache/request.c:1034:2: error: implicit declaration of 
>> function 'down_read_non_owner' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>    down_read_non_owner(&dc->writeback_lock);
>>    ^
>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>>
> 
> Can you send us your config.

The problem is that bcache is using new semaphore functions which it
just introduced which rt does not know about. The comment above their
definition says that it is wrong to use them and completion is the
right way to do it.
So my question is, why don't we use completion but this nasty hack?

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Steve

Sebastian
--
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/