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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:50:46 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

Hi David,

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:28:32 +0200 David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:33:02PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > fs/btrfs/ctree.c: In function '__tree_mod_log_insert':
> > fs/btrfs/ctree.c:388:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'lockdep_assert_held_exclusive'; did you mean 'lockdep_assert_held_once'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   lockdep_assert_held_exclusive(&fs_info->tree_mod_log_lock);
> >   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >   lockdep_assert_held_once
> > 
> > Caused by commit
> > 
> >   9ffbe8ac05db ("locking/lockdep: Rename lockdep_assert_held_exclusive() -> lockdep_assert_held_write()")
> > 
> > interacting with commits
> > 
> >   84cd7723de7c ("btrfs: assert tree mod log lock in __tree_mod_log_insert")
> >   283d2e443505 ("btrfs: assert extent map tree lock in add_extent_mapping")  
> 
> I can move the patches out of the for-5.3 branch and send them
> separately after the rename gets merged, they're merely adding the
> assertion and otherwise do not affect the rest of the code.
> 
> Fixing that in another way would probably need more synchronization
> between the branches but I don't think it's necessary in this case. The
> next for-next snapshot branch will fix the compilation issue.

I see that you removed those commits.  The conflict is no more.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists