From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Hogan Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: MIPS: Add missing uaccess.h include Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:16:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20161020131630.GL7370@jhogan-linux.le.imgtec.org> References: <20161020131054.GF8573@potion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WR+jf/RUebEcofwt" Cc: , Paolo Bonzini , Ralf Baechle , To: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= Return-path: Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:24372 "EHLO imgpgp01.kl.imgtec.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751033AbcJTNQd (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:16:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161020131054.GF8573@potion> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --WR+jf/RUebEcofwt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Radim, On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:10:54PM +0200, Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 wrote: > 2016-10-19 00:45+0100, James Hogan: > > MIPS KVM uses user memory accessors but mips.c doesn't directly include > > uaccess.h, so include it now. > >=20 > > This wasn't too much of a problem before v4.9-rc1 as asm/module.h > > included asm/uaccess.h, however since commit 29abfbd9cbba ("mips: > > separate extable.h, switch module.h to it") this is no longer the case. > >=20 > > This resulted in build failures when trace points were disabled, as > > trace/define_trace.h includes trace/trace_events.h only ifdef > > TRACEPOINTS_ENABLED, which goes on to include asm/uaccess.h via a couple > > of other headers. > >=20 > > Fixes: 29abfbd9cbba ("mips: separate extable.h, switch module.h to it") > > Signed-off-by: James Hogan > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini > > Cc: "Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99" > > Cc: Ralf Baechle > > Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org > > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org > > --- >=20 > We'd like to have this patch in 4.9-rc2 and I see it in kvm-mips/next. > Would you prefer to send a pull request? Yes, I've applied it to my next branch and was going to send a pull request this afternoon. BTW, generally speaking do you always prefer pull requests to have the patches sent in reply to it, or only if they haven't already been posted for review? > (I can apply it directly just as well.) Thanks James --WR+jf/RUebEcofwt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYCMOmAAoJEGwLaZPeOHZ65hsP/jGIwoeoSQu4b1x6FuXSu5bJ f5iZpTvopa9/ShCm321ZPppp3QgcpSV/V8Yvol1sQmfCMPqeEnLUThWGKVfkjXWp b9/b37OeHhxwD19XZpFCkwhjbD6nyG3jWqRyTa6e4lh/XNjOIMQEqjGkQ9sIIH92 2CJjB4c+XSeLAvapwP2kLBew09EeIJyB+rG20gVaJj343X+te3qx96mMYB19kpCJ 2TIvTB9Z37Vujbv7196Jn8oN8eNZrMa3Nja+tnauKa3hTmQQXS3vE8u8QriB4+VF DBTJJNT3hti1NWpilDcRpQBinlTpvn2m4oy9Fgic6h8pL1ScWbA3AAL/btFn9Bf7 9XrTm96OApcQZWWYOQ3eEWCTvD2+j0eeY3FriuPX8h6q8L9IBWfuzX6x4xTdiMXh 74/OejmCsnR2b1K/HTnI3WHvLgoTtL0T54kDO/N4p81EcgVzJwg+YB4RqE/DUj79 uCeKywb8ULEQf/7R361UIKn4GIa/W5xzUgYTtqNKzT4ndjdhApq0cUNEXfBWHydO BE/6sOMj+XT5nUt7zFwfxlxvuDfk053NhrnbJvmRPpPTL6pTvjpqD29yg0BhSY/n AYmQ1HTBzi7a6GVax9xYNBsG4f9+pOD8gcy4ROk7iKXnELbBNPybhBPucMnKXx1z /20qsHY0XYdGKok+VHVf =YfQv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WR+jf/RUebEcofwt--