linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the regulator 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: <YZz4FkRoiVIbfgEf@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 23 Nov 2021 14:17:58 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "heiko.carstens@...ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        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 regulator tree

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:26:45AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:

> As a second thought - do we need such a stub function at all? I guess 
> anyone who is actually adding a call to the 
> rohm_regulator_set_voltage_sel_restricted()  helper should also have the 
> implementation selected. Failing to do so is probably indication of an 
> error. Compile testing could perhaps be an exception but this is 
> currently not supported.

> Should I just drop the stub or make it inline? Am I overlooking something?

Dropping it does seem reasonable, I can't immediately think of a case
where the stub would get used.  I've queued your existing patch to try
to make sure that a fix lands tomorrow so (assuming no test issues)
please send a removal patch on top of that.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)