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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20170801205054.17c8579f@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 20:50:54 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

Hi all,

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:39:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> After merging the akpm tree, today's linux-next build (sparc defconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> In file included from mm/vmscan.c:55:0:
> include/linux/swapops.h: In function 'swp_entry_to_pmd':
> include/linux/swapops.h:226:9: error: implicit declaration of function '__pmd' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   return __pmd(0);
>          ^
> include/linux/swapops.h:226:9: error: incompatible types when returning type 'int' but 'pmd_t {aka struct <anonymous>}' was expected
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>   9bb18490758c ("mm-thp-enable-thp-migration-in-generic-path-fix")
> 
> It looks like sparc 32 bit has no __pmd() ...
> 
> I have reverted that commit for today.

OK, that is a pain as it causes many build warnings some of which are
treated as errors :-(  (see e.g.
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/13112192/).  So maybe
we need to fix sthe sparc32 build instead?  Are there any other
architectures/platforms that do not define __pmd() ?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell