linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL 2/3] ARM: SoC driver updates for 4.15

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]

Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:25:12 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        arm-soc <arm@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        Vladimir Barinov <vladimir.barinov@...entembedded.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 2/3] ARM: SoC driver updates for 4.15

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>
>> ARM: SoC driver updates for v4.15
>
> No. This is completely broken, and I can't imagine that it has ever
> compiled for *anybody*.
>
>   drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:10: fatal error:
> dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory
>    #include <dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h>
>
> and the compiler is completely right. This branch added that
> r8a77970-sysc.c file, but never added the header file.
>
> And it's not some odd merge mistake of mine: I checked. That error is
> there in the original branch too.
>
> Tssk.

Right, I need to figure out how this could have slipped through. I did
get several "BUILD SUCCESS" mails from the kbuild bot (see
https://pastebin.com/JDw3EKDZ), which claims to have built it
successfully in all configurations, including allmodconfig builds on
arm/arm64 and x86-64. Fengguang, do you remember problems
with false-negatives recently?

I also did my own tests based on the "for-next" branch and looked
at the kernelci results of that branch, but that didn't catch the
mistake as the file in question was added in the third "dt" branch.

The dt-bindings/ files have caused endless problems like this
in the past, and I've been very careful about spotting missing
changes when they happen in my next/dt branch and complained
a lot whenever someone sent me crap that didn't compile because
of that. Now I've fallen into the same trap in the opposite direction,
when the patch was in next/dt but missing in next/drivers.

I have the third branch ready now, you should be able to
merge that right away without pulling this one first as there
are no dependencies.

Regarding this pull request 2/3, would you prefer

a) pulling it after 3/3, thereby getting a bisection problem
    but having contents that are otherwise tested in combination
b) me to do a 'git rebase -i -p' to remove the broken pull
    request from underneath all the others (unfortunately it
    was the second of 19 branches I merged), resulting in
    a tree that builds cleanly without bisection issues, but that
    has a recent rebuild
c) dropping the entire branch until the next merge window?

        Arnd