linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <2789631.bINkkb0RYT@hactar>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:26:57 -0300
From:   Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

Am Dienstag, 20 September 2016, 22:00:32 schrieb Michael Ellerman:
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:44:14 +1000 Stephen Rothwell 
<sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >> After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> >> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >> 
> >> powerpc-linux-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-m'
> >> scripts/Makefile.build:290: recipe for target
> >> 'arch/powerpc/purgatory/printf.o' failed
> >> 
> >> and a few more like that.
> > 
> > OK, this is (most likely) caused by the CONFIG_WORD_SIZE -> BITS change
> > interacting with the KEXEC_FILE changes. Tomorrow I will do a better
> > merge conflict resolution patch that fixes all those.
> 
> Ah yep looks like that's the problem, patch below should fix it?
> 
> I think I'd actually prefer it if purgatory didn't redefine the CFLAGS
> from scratch, so I'll see if Thiago can do that and send a new version.

I could move the purgatory inside arch/powerpc/boot and use its BOOTCFLAGS. 
The needs of the purgatory and the boot wrapper are very similar. Would that 
be better?
-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center