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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:23:44 -0700 From: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@...ma.Stanford.EDU> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> CC: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>, 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 08/16/2013 12:01 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > 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? In the meanwhile, any hope of a patch to be able to compile and test with my current configuration? Thanks, -- Fernando -- 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