linux-kernel - Re: [next]: fs/io_uring.c:6171:10: error: implicit declaration of function 'io_sendmsg_prep_async'; did you mean 'io_req_prep

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]

Message-ID: <a6c9a1f0-43a2-4c8d-a574-827e85e3c314@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:18:59 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [next]: fs/io_uring.c:6171:10: error: implicit declaration of
 function 'io_sendmsg_prep_async'; did you mean 'io_req_prep_async'?

On 2/19/21 9:10 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 19/02/2021 16:08, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>> Linux next tag 20210219 arm and mips builds failed due to below error.
>>
>> Following build configs failed
>> arm (s3c6400_defconfig) with gcc-8
>> arm (s3c6400_defconfig) with gcc-9
>> arm (s3c6400_defconfig) with gcc-10
>>
>> mips (e55_defconfig) with gcc-8
>> mips (e55_defconfig) with gcc-9
>> mips (e55_defconfig) with gcc-10
>>
>> fs/io_uring.c:6171:10: error: implicit declaration of function
>> 'io_sendmsg_prep_async'; did you mean 'io_req_prep_async'?
>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>    return io_sendmsg_prep_async(req);
>>           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>           io_req_prep_async
> 
> !CONFIG_NET, I guess. Thanks for letting know

Yep, I'm making a cleanup for that.

-- 
Jens Axboe