linux-kernel - Re: pinctrl-msm build error on Linus' 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:	Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:07:37 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
	torvalds@...uxfoundation.org,
	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
	Pramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@...rtplayin.com>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pinctrl-msm build error on Linus' tree

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:34:03AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 06:42:55PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> >> However, there is literally nothing else in the tree that calls or
> >> provides those functions:
> >>
> >> [jwboyer@...er linux]$ git grep unregister_restart_handler
> >> drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c:     unregister_restart_handler(&pctrl->resta
> >> [jwboyer@...er linux]$
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm rather confused.  How was this commit built and tested?
> 
> I guess the dependent tree was being pulled into linux-next before
> the pinctrl tree, and so the end result was working?
> 
> > Looks like the pinctrl tree did not include the merge with the immutable
> > branch with the necessary infrastructure in its pull request to Linus :-(.
> 
> Yeah maybe I missed some pull request for that, such things happen.
> 
> > As for how it was tested in the pinctrl tree, no idea. Maybe pinctrl-msm has
> > some dependency which was missing in the pinctrl tree and came in through
> > a different pull request.
> 
> See above.
> 
> Anyway, it is a minor platform, not x86_64. So don't exaggerate
> this thing, and besides the restart notifiers are great.
> 
> If we go down the route of trying to always avoid all trouble in the
> world by adding more procedure I guess we shouldn't shoehorn

Not a matter of procedure, but it would have been easy to avoid.
I take at least part of the blame here because I did not follow up
with you to make sure that you merge the infrastructure into your tree.

> too much into the same merge window and should have this
> postponed to v3.19. But I don't know if it buys us so much.
> 
That was the original idea, but the restart handler was way more successful
that I thought it would or could be, so things got pulled in a bit.

Anyway, I tend to agree - there are now several other build failures in
Linus' tree which it inherited from linux-next. I consider those worse,
especially since the majority if not all of those problems were known
from -next but ignored. Wonder what the value of -next is if people
don't care if it builds or not :-(.

But then Linus ignored my pull request (so far), so maybe I did manage to
upset him ;-).

Guenter
--
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/