netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] sfc: separate out SFC4000 ("Falcon") support into new sfc-falcon driver

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:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:29:47 +0000
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
CC:     <kbuild-all@...org>, <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <bkenward@...arflare.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] sfc: separate out SFC4000 ("Falcon") support
 into new sfc-falcon driver

On 26/11/16 00:58, kbuild test robot wrote:
> Hi Edward,
>
> [auto build test ERROR on net-next/master]
>
> url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Edward-Cree/sfc-split-out-Falcon-driver/20161126-033439
> config: i386-randconfig-h1-11260702 (attached as .config)
> compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.2.0-3) 6.2.0 20160901
> reproduce:
>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>         make ARCH=i386 
>
> Note: the linux-review/Edward-Cree/sfc-split-out-Falcon-driver/20161126-033439 HEAD 738d215da7cf33cb4f2916dfba4fdb1558829e5a builds fine.
>       It only hurts bisectibility.
>
> All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
>    drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon/built-in.o: In function `tenxpress_set_id_led':
>>> (.text+0x28db4): multiple definition of `tenxpress_set_id_led'
>    drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/built-in.o:(.text+0x3bac7): first defined here
Right, I have to do at least some of the rip-stuff-out in the first patch, else
building both drivers built-in breaks.  (I only tested building them as modules,
that was silly of me.)
Wondering if the right thing to do is just squash both patches together: it
could hardly make the series _less_ reviewable, and it might help git recognise
more of the copies as file renames.
Opinions?
-Ed