linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the wireless-next 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]

Date:	Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:47:38 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the wireless-next tree

Hi John,

On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:07:16 -0500 "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 01:35:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > After merging the wireless-next tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > drivers/staging/rtl8821ae/rc.c:289:2: error: unknown field 'module' specified in initializer
> >   .module = NULL,
> >   ^
> > 
> > Caused by commit 161d78555435 ("Revert "Staging: rtl8812ae: remove
> > modules field of rate_control_ops"").
> > 
> > The commit "Staging: rtl8812ae: remove modules field of rate_control_ops"
> > was needed in the wireless-next tree - I said so at the time of reporting
> > the original breakage: 
> > 
> > > Actually, your tree is based on -rc2, so you need this patch already (it
> > > should have bee included in the merge commit 841577c3d33b ("Merge branch
> > > 'for-john' of
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jberg/mac80211-next").
> > 
> > And now that part of the wireless-next tree has migrated to the net-next tree.
> > 
> > I have no idea why you thought you should revert the fix.
> > 
> > I have used the wireless tree from next-20140224 for today.
> 
> The fix should go through Greg's tree.  I shouldn't have merged it at all.

No, the fix was only required in your tree (since it was a patch in your
tree that caused the breakage).  And that fix is now in Dave's tree, so
reverting it in your tree just rebreaks stuff in your tree (and in Dave's
tree if your tree is merged by Dave again).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped