[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250326042655.4e160022@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 04:26:55 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Kuniyuki Iwashima
<kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>, David Miller
<davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Networking
<netdev@...r.kernel.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 apparmor tree
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:01:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> After merging the apparmor tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> security/apparmor/af_unix.c: In function 'unix_state_double_lock':
> security/apparmor/af_unix.c:627:17: error: implicit declaration of function 'unix_state_lock'; did you mean 'unix_state_double_lock'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> 627 | unix_state_lock(sk1);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> | unix_state_double_lock
> security/apparmor/af_unix.c: In function 'unix_state_double_unlock':
> security/apparmor/af_unix.c:642:17: error: implicit declaration of function 'unix_state_unlock'; did you mean 'unix_state_double_lock'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> 642 | unix_state_unlock(sk1);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> | unix_state_double_lock
Thanks Stephen! I'll pop this into the tree in a few hours,
just giving Kuniyuki a bit more time to ack.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists