linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAHk-=whreYmsU_AQtzDS5gd3yamYJ72gBo+YekYSyJLPQ1Qo-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:03:17 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        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 driver-core tree

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build
> > for arm64 allmodconfig failed like this:
>
> Wait, I thought Linus said this fixup was now resolved.  What went
> wrong?

I think this is purely a linux-next build failure.

I do full allmodconfig builds between each merge I do, and what
happened is that as part of the LED merge, I removed the
no-longer-used 'i2c_acpi_find_match_adapter()' to resolve that build
warning.

Then linux-next presumably merged my tree with the driver-core tree,
and that re-instated the use of i2c_acpi_find_match_adapter() - which
was now gone.

But when *I* merged the driver-core tree, I did the merge fixup
correctly to actually re-instate not only the use, but also re-instate
the removed function that now had a use again.

> Linus, should I submit a fix for this?

My tree should be fine, and I really think this is just a temporary
linux-next effect from the above. I think linux-next only handled the
actual syntactic conflicts, not the semantic conflict of "function had
been removed to avoid build error from previous merge, and needed to
be brought back"

Knock wood.

              Linus