linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the cxl 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gSW0Rkz24eCs9gHE_hPZzPWbNXU1TMNGSHGW0sqvUgTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 10:43:27 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the cxl tree

On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 9:20 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the cxl tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/nvdimm/label.c:750:32: error: 'uuid_to_nvdimm_cclass' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>   750 | static enum nvdimm_claim_class uuid_to_nvdimm_cclass(uuid_t *uuid)
>       |                                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>
> Caused by commit
>
>   d68bc4b2338b ("libnvdimm/labels: Add address-abstraction uuid definitions")
>
> Exposed by commit
>
>   3fe617ccafd6 ("Enable '-Werror' by default for all kernel builds")
>
> I have applied the following patch for today.
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:14:52 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] cxl: mark unused function as such
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  drivers/nvdimm/label.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>

Thanks for that Stephen. I'll just back this patch out and retry for
v5.16, it's not super critical.