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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:07:48 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 12:03:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

I looked at your merge of the driver core tree, and see that the
"missing" function is now back.

And I did a test build here and all works for me, so I think this is ok,
thanks for the fixup.

greg k-h