[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151021083812.GL3421@piout.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:38:12 +0200
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-soc@...r.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] drivers/tty: make more bool drivers explicitly
non-modular
On 20/10/2015 at 20:20:07 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote :
> [Re: [PATCH 0/5] drivers/tty: make more bool drivers explicitly non-modular] On 20/10/2015 (Tue 17:10) Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>
> > On 18/10/2015 at 18:21:13 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote :
> > > The one common thread here for all the patches is that we also
> > > scrap the .remove functions which would only be used for module
> > > unload (impossible) and driver unbind. For the drivers here, there
> > > doesn't seem to be a sensible unbind use case (vs. e.g. a multiport
> > > PCI ethernet driver where one port is unbound and passed through to
> > > a kvm guest or similar). Hence we just explicitly disallow any
> > > driver unbind operations to help prevent root from doing something
> > > illogical to the machine that they could have done previously.
> > >
> > > We've already done this for drivers/tty/serial/mpsc.c previously.
> > >
> > > Build tested for allmodconfig on ARM64 and powerpc for tty/tty-testing.
> > >
> >
> > So, how does this actually build test atmel_serial?
>
> Not sure why this should be a surprise; I build test it exactly like this:
>
CONFIG_SERIAL_ATMEL is not selected by allmodconfig on arm64 or powerpc
so this is not explaining how you build tested atmel_serial.
> paul@...lder-02:~/git/linux-head$ echo $ARCH
> arm64
> paul@...lder-02:~/git/linux-head$ echo $CROSS_COMPILE
> aarch64-linux-gnu-
> paul@...lder-02:~/git/linux-head$ make O=../arm-build/ drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.o
> make[1]: Entering directory '/home/paul/git/arm-build'
> arch/arm64/Makefile:25: LSE atomics not supported by binutils
> CHK include/config/kernel.release
> Using /home/paul/git/linux-head as source for kernel
> GEN ./Makefile
> CHK include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h
> CHK include/generated/utsrelease.h
>
> [...]
>
> HOSTCC scripts/sign-file
> HOSTCC scripts/extract-cert
> CC drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.o
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/paul/git/arm-build'
> paul@...lder-02:~/git/linux-head$
>
> It did build; no warning/error. Would you call it an invalid build test?
>
What you describe is a different test. I end up with 4 warnings when
doing that on my machine.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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