linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the nand 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]

Date:   Tue, 2 Apr 2019 11:21:41 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
        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 nand tree

Hi Paul,

Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote on Tue, 2 Apr 2019
09:27:47 +0200:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net> wrote on Tue, 02 Apr 2019 01:31:52
> +0200:
> 
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > Le mar. 2 avril 2019 à 1:14, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> a écrit :  
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > After merging the nand tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > > 
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c:26:5: error: redefinition > of 'ingenic_ecc_calculate'
> > >  int ingenic_ecc_calculate(struct ingenic_ecc *ecc,
> > >      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c:14:
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.h:39:5: note: previous > definition of 'ingenic_ecc_calculate' was here
> > >  int ingenic_ecc_calculate(struct ingenic_ecc *ecc,
> > >      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c:47:5: error: redefinition > of 'ingenic_ecc_correct'
> > >  int ingenic_ecc_correct(struct ingenic_ecc *ecc,
> > >      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c:14:
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.h:46:5: note: previous > definition of 'ingenic_ecc_correct' was here
> > >  int ingenic_ecc_correct(struct ingenic_ecc *ecc,
> > >      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c:93:21: error: redefinition > of 'of_ingenic_ecc_get'
> > >  struct ingenic_ecc *of_ingenic_ecc_get(struct device_node *of_node)
> > >                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c:14:
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.h:57:21: note: previous > definition of 'of_ingenic_ecc_get' was here
> > >  struct ingenic_ecc *of_ingenic_ecc_get(struct device_node *np)
> > >                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c:119:6: error: redefinition > of 'ingenic_ecc_release'
> > >  void ingenic_ecc_release(struct ingenic_ecc *ecc)
> > >       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c:14:
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.h:53:6: note: previous > definition of 'ingenic_ecc_release' was here
> > >  void ingenic_ecc_release(struct ingenic_ecc *ecc)
> > >       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 
> > > Caused by commit
> > > 
> > >   8278ad0d709a ("mtd: rawnand: ingenic: Separate top-level and SoC > specific code")
> > > 
> > > I have used the nand tree from next-20190401 for today.    
> > 
> > That makes no sense to me; from the offsets of the errors in the ingenic_ecc.h
> > file, it seems that CONFIG_MTD_NAND_INGENIC_ECC is not set, and in this case
> > ingenic_ecc.c should not be compiled at all.
> > 
> > -Paul
> > 
> >   
> 
> There must be a mistmatch somewhere in Kconfig, please reproduce with
> allmodconfig on x86_64, I don't have time to check on this today.
> Otherwise I'll have to drop the patchset :/

I wonder if the root cause comes from another patchset (mine, actually)
which I applied on top of your work. Maybe there is a conflict there. I
am looking into it.


Thanks,
Miquèl