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: <56d35d0e-ca17-56e8-38c6-e26acd527ee5@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:56:11 +0100
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
To:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     broonie@...nel.org, wsa@...-dreams.de,
        mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree

On 09/18/2019 08:07 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> 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
> 

Thanks for the fixup ! Apologies for the inconvenience

Suzuki