linux-kernel - Re: riscv: irq-riscv-imsic-early.c:52:9: error: too many arguments to function 'riscv_ipi_set_virq

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]

Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 13:24:11 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, naresh.kamboju@...aro.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
 regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
 apatel@...tanamicro.com, anders.roxell@...aro.org, dan.carpenter@...aro.org,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: riscv: irq-riscv-imsic-early.c:52:9: error: too many arguments to
 function 'riscv_ipi_set_virq_range'

On 5/24/24 12:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, May 24 2024 at 10:35, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2024 10:18:42 PDT (-0700), tglx@...utronix.de wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 24 2024 at 08:10, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:05:59AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>>>> as a conflict resolution, which IIUC should happen when Linus merges my next
>>>>> PR.  So I'll try and remember to call that out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately it looks like the conflict resolution did not happen,
>>>> and mainline builds are now affected.
>>>
>>> Fix is queued and goes to Linus tomorrow.
>>
>> Sorry I misesd this.  The PR I sent Linus this morning contains my fix
>> from earlier this week:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/171647463438.13050.6219786365640043025.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org/T/#t
> 
> Happens. I don't rebase my try. I just mention it to Linus when I
> send the pull request. It's the same change so the result is a NOOP and
> not another conflict :)
> 

For my part I did try to find out if a fix had been submitted before sending
my note. Unfortunately I missed it. The problem is now fixed upstream.
Sorry for the noise.

Guenter