linux-kernel - Re: next-20221122: tinyconfig: ppc n s390: kernel/printk/printk.c:95:1: error: type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit int [-Werror,-Wimplicit-int]

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]

Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:33:39 +0106
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: next-20221122: tinyconfig: ppc n s390:
 kernel/printk/printk.c:95:1: error: type specifier missing, defaults to
 'int'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit int
 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-int]

On 2022-11-22, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>> @paulmck: Do you have a problem with permanently activating CONFIG_SRCU?
>
> The people wanting it separate back in the day were those wanting very
> tiny kernels.  I have not heard from them in a long time, so maybe it
> is now OK to just make SRCU unconditional.

Who decides this? Or maybe I should create a semaphore-based Variant of
console_srcu_read_lock()/console_srcu_read_unlock() for the
"!CONFIG_PRINTK && !CONFIG_SRCU" case?

John