[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <809c5ec8-0763-6855-bbbc-3cb95e168278@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:18:01 +0100
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...il.com>,
NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the nfs-anna tree
On 17/12/2018 00.16, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the nfs-anna tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> /home/sfr/next/next/fs/nfs/nfsroot.c: In function 'root_nfs_data':
> /home/sfr/next/next/fs/nfs/nfsroot.c:264:5: error: implicit declaration of function 'fmtcheck'; did you mean 'dst_check'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> fmtcheck(tmp, "%s", 0), utsname()->nodename);
> ^~~~~~~~
> dst_check
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 66ab6f062d96 ("nfs: use fmtcheck() in root_nfs_data")
I didn't know anybody had picked that one up. It's completely safe to
just ignore that commit until the fmtcheck() utility is actually in.
Anna, can I take the fact that this was picked up as a sort-of implicit
ack, that I can use if and when I ever get around to resending the
fmtcheck() series? And for simplicitly, would you mind if the nfs patch
would just be routed along with the patches introducing fmtcheck()?
Rasmus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists