linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of most trees

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]

Message-ID: <20170622162338.7ea0df3e@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:23:38 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of most trees

Hi Nick,

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:20:11 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:49:52 +1000 Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > It could be this
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/masahiroy/linux-kbuild.git/commit/?h=thin-ar&id=ec2c9c20f0efab37ae31de44fe0617aa61283905
> > 
> >     kbuild: handle libs-y archives separately from built-in.o archives
> > 
> > That touches the lib linking code regardless of CONFIG_THIN_ARCHIVE.
> > You should be able to revert it by itself (which will break a few
> > other archs, so you would also have to revert the default y patch
> > for thin archives to repair your tree if this is the cause).  
> 
> Yeah, reverting that commit fixes the sparc64 build. (i have not done
> that in today;s linux-next release, however).

But it broke the 32 bit sparc defconfig:

arch/sparc/lib/strlen.o: In function `strlen':
(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `strlen'
lib/string.o:string.c:(.text+0x4b4): first defined here

No unexpected, I expect :-)
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell