From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.36.merge Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:30:15 -0700 Message-ID: <20100815133015.883c7069.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:55038 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751664Ab0HOUat (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:30:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: sedat.dilek@gmail.com, Andi Kleen , len.brown@intel.com, Linux ACPI , LKML On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:15:51 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > I pulled in release GIT-branch on top of 2.6.35-git16 (commit > > 5d7cb157025b3b4852f38e6e5e97d06ef12c1d78) > > > > =C2=A0 $ git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-a= cpi-2.6.git > > release > > > > Unfortunately, the build breaks: > > > > [ build.log ] > > drivers/acpi/power.c: In function =E2=80=98acpi_power_off_device=E2= =80=99: > > drivers/acpi/power.c:252: error: =E2=80=98ref=E2=80=99 undeclared (= first use in this function) >=20 > What the heck is going on? That thing cannot have been tested AT ALL. > It comes from commit cfa806f05980 ("gcc-4.6: ACPI: fix unused but set > variables in ACPI"), and there is no way that code has ever been > compiled. There's no conditional compilation (except for not enabling > ACPI at all), and the declaration of 'ref' that the commit removes is > followed just a few lines later by the use. >=20 > So WTF? >=20 > I can merge this and fix it up, but I'm not going to. This thing > should never have been sent to me. It clearly had no testing at all. = I > even looked at whether it could _possibly_ be some kind of odd "patch > applied with fuzz at the wrong place" issue, but that looks impossibl= e > too (not to mention _still_ not being an excuse for not even trying t= o > compile the thing). >=20 > I understand when people don't notice compile errors that don't happe= n > for them (due to being architecture- or configuration-specific), but = I > really don't see how that could _ever_ have been the case here. >=20 > I see Andrew in the sign-off chain, which surprises me. Maybe he just > passed on the patch blindly. But seriously, what the _hell_ is going > on here? >=20 I'd be suspecting that we have two patches both of which worked separately but which broke when combined. Is there some other patch in that tree which adds a new reference to `ref' in acpi_power_seq_show()? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html