Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the pm tree (and warning)

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi Rafael
> 
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, November 14, 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > > 
> > > After merging the pm tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > > failed like this:
> > > 
> > > drivers/dma/dmatest.c: In function 'dmatest_func':
> > > drivers/dma/dmatest.c:255:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'set_freezable_with_signal' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > 
> > > Caused by commit cd3bc8fbc2d5 ("freezer: kill unused
> > > set_freezable_with_signal()") interacting with commit 981ed70d8e4f
> > > ("dmatest: make dmatest threads freezable") from Linus' tree (merged into
> > > v3.2-rc1).
> > > 
> > > I reverted the pm tree commit for today.
> > 
> > Thanks, I've added the following patch to linux-pm/linux-next, which should
> > fix this problem (Tejun, if that's not the right thing to do, please let me
> > know).
> > 
> > Rafael
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > Subject: Freezer: Make dmatest_func() use set_freezable()
> > 
> > According to the commit cd3bc8fbc2d55ae0918184fb34992054dc4eb710
> > (freezer: kill unused set_freezable_with_signal()) changelog,
> > it should be sufficient to use set_freezable() instead of
> > set_freezable_with_signal(), which has been removed, in
> > dmatest_func(), so do that and fix a build issue.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > ---
> >  drivers/dma/dmatest.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux/drivers/dma/dmatest.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/drivers/dma/dmatest.c
> > +++ linux/drivers/dma/dmatest.c
> > @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ static int dmatest_func(void *data)
> >  	int			i;
> >  
> >  	thread_name = current->comm;
> > -	set_freezable_with_signal();
> > +	set_freezable();
> 
> No, this isn't a correct fix.

OK, I'll drop it, then.

Thanks,
Rafael