linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] MIPS: ralink: Fix build error due to missing header

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

Message-ID: <20170718220126.GA22091@linux-mips.org>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:01:26 +0200
From:   Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To:     Harvey Hunt <harvey.hunt@...tec.com>
Cc:     "#4 . 11+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] MIPS: ralink: Fix build error due to missing header

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 02:25:45PM +0100, Harvey Hunt wrote:

> Previously, <linux/module.h> was included before ralink_regs.h in all
> ralink files - leading to <linux/io.h> being implicitly included.
> 
> After commit 26dd3e4ff9ac ("MIPS: Audit and remove any unnecessary
> uses of module.h") removed the inclusion of module.h from multiple
> places, some ralink platforms failed to build with the following error:
> 
> In file included from arch/mips/ralink/mt7620.c:17:0:
> ./arch/mips/include/asm/mach-ralink/ralink_regs.h: In function ‘rt_sysc_w32’:
> ./arch/mips/include/asm/mach-ralink/ralink_regs.h:38:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘__raw_writel’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   __raw_writel(val, rt_sysc_membase + reg);
>   ^
> ./arch/mips/include/asm/mach-ralink/ralink_regs.h: In function ‘rt_sysc_r32’:
> ./arch/mips/include/asm/mach-ralink/ralink_regs.h:43:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘__raw_readl’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   return __raw_readl(rt_sysc_membase + reg);
> 
> Fix this by including <linux/io.h>.

Looks sensible, applied.  But I'm wondering why I don't see this in my
test builds.

  Ralf