linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the origin 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: <75e2514c-7647-4d3b-9c55-c6e5c615c92e@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:00:21 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
 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 origin tree

On 30/09/2024 12:50, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:28:40PM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 30/09/2024 05:38, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> After merging the origin tree, today's linux-next build (s390
>>> defconfig) failed like this:
>>> 
>>> In file included from fs/bcachefs/bset.h:9, from
>>> fs/bcachefs/btree_iter.h:5, from fs/bcachefs/str_hash.h:5, from
>>> fs/bcachefs/xattr.h:5, from fs/bcachefs/acl.c:6: 
>>> fs/bcachefs/bkey.h: In function 'bch2_bkey_format_add_key': 
>>> fs/bcachefs/bkey.h:557:41: error: 'const struct bkey' has no
>>> member named 'bversion'; did you mean 'version'? 557 |
>>> x(BKEY_FIELD_VERSION_HI,        bversion.hi)
>>> \ |                                         ^~~~~~~~
>> 
>> 
>> Also reported earlier here: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202409272048.MZvBm569-lkp@intel.com/ 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202409271712.EZRpO2Z1-lkp@intel.com/
>> 
>> But the true problem is here:
>> 
>> commit cf49f8a8c277f9f2b78e2a56189a741a508a9820 Author:     Kent
>> Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> AuthorDate: Thu Sep 26
>> 15:49:17 2024 -0400 ^^^^^^^^^^^ Commit:     Kent Overstreet
>> <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> CommitDate: Fri Sep 27 21:46:35 2024
>> -0400 ^^^^^^^^^^^ one day difference!
>> 
>> Last minute commits usually won't receive wide build coverage, at
>> least not instantaneously.
>> 
>> And if you go through the history, I see around 40 commits with
>> authored date ~20-26 September and committed on Sep 27. Plus
>> another ~40 authored earlier but committed on September 21, which
>> is middle of merge window.
>> 
>> Why such commits for RC1 are sent at the end of merge window or 
>> committed during merge window?
> 
> the rename was something I did to track down a bug in the disk
> accounting rewrite: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bcachefs/pvga5sgp4vejnnr5ojgiuwte6qeve4x7ld4dhdmzb625l367fq@q4td2cutlfvu/T/

I am sorry, but I do not see how cleanup-like rename is related to
tracking down a tricky bug and fixing it. Looks like fixes got
inter-mixed with such minor refactoring.

>
>  I do need to get multi-arch build testing going on my CI, but right
> now I'm busy working on corner cases in the repair code...

Well, I claim it is easy, if you wait one day for the notification from
LKP - I got notification after every push, also on success, so I am sure
that my kernel (and development, but that's unrelated) builds fine on
wide configuration. And this is free as in free beer...

Best regards,
Krzysztof