[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170515.102355.1861593347498991413.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 10:23:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: arnd@...db.de
Cc: bot@...nelci.org, kernel-build-reports@...ts.linaro.org,
edumazet@...gle.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: stable/linux-4.10.y build: 203 builds: 3 failed, 200 passed, 3
errors, 5 warnings (v4.10.16)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 14:57:08 +0200
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:48 PM, kernelci.org bot <bot@...nelci.org> wrote:
>>
>> stable/linux-4.10.y build: 203 builds: 3 failed, 200 passed, 3 errors, 5 warnings (v4.10.16)
>> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable/branch/linux-4.10.y/kernel/v4.10.16/
>> Tree: stable
>> Branch: linux-4.10.y
>> Git Describe: v4.10.16
>> Git Commit: 6e8e9958691907e8d7eb3b2107619dddbdaeb175
>> Git URL: http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git
>> Built: 4 unique architectures
>>
>> Build Failures Detected:
>>
>> arm: gcc version 5.3.1 20160412 (Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.05)
>> spear3xx_defconfig FAIL
>> spear6xx_defconfig FAIL
>> tct_hammer_defconfig FAIL
>> Errors summary:
>> 3 net/core/skbuff.c:1575:37: error: 'sock_edemux' undeclared (first use in this function)
>> Warnings summary:
>
> This is a regression against v4.10.15, caused by the backport of
> c21b48cc1bbf ("net: adjust skb->truesize in ___pskb_trim()") by Eric
> Dumazet.
>
> Part of another commit that Eric did earlier fixes it:
>
> 158f323b9868 ("net: adjust skb->truesize in pskb_expand_head()")
> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> @@ -1534,7 +1534,7 @@ void sock_efree(struct sk_buff *skb);
> #ifdef CONFIG_INET
> void sock_edemux(struct sk_buff *skb);
> #else
> -#define sock_edemux(skb) sock_efree(skb)
> +#define sock_edemux sock_efree
> #endif
>
> int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int op,
>
> This commit is not marked 'Cc: stable' upstream, but is referenced
> in the one that was backported and looks like it might be appropriate
> for stable as well. Eric, can you clarify?
Yeah we should definitely merge this into -stable, sorry for not
noticing this during the backport.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists