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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:31:27 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: linux-next: build warning after merge of the akpm-current tree
Hi all,
After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
mm/vmstat.c:614: warning: "MAX_THRESHOLD" redefined
614 | #define MAX_THRESHOLD 0
|
mm/vmstat.c:172: note: this is the location of the previous definition
172 | #define MAX_THRESHOLD 125
|
mm/vmstat.c:614: warning: "MAX_THRESHOLD" redefined
614 | #define MAX_THRESHOLD 0
|
mm/vmstat.c:172: note: this is the location of the previous definition
172 | #define MAX_THRESHOLD 125
|
Introduced by commit
5f6bac149e10 ("mm: vmstat: fix /proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh generating false warnings")
The preproccesor directives look like this:
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
#define MAX_THRESHOLD 125
#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL
#else
#define MAX_THRESHOLD 0
So I guess the second MAX_THRESHOLD was put after the wrong #else?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists