From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the scsi tree Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:37:17 +0000 Message-ID: <1357918637.3065.22.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> References: <20130111120323.cdc06081d0fb1c498c9f1779@canb.auug.org.au> <1357889656.3065.2.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <50F02F4E.4070804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:42027 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752022Ab3AKPhV (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:37:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <50F02F4E.4070804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Brian King Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wen Xiong , Greg KH , linux-scsi On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 09:27 -0600, Brian King wrote: > It looks like this was a due to the fact that the new patches > added __devinit tags in the same merge window the __devinit tag > itself was getting removed. Not exactly. The patch which makes them nops went into 3.8. Now there's a patch queued in, Gregs tree I presume, to remove them all and the #defines which causes the compile failure. > As to the sparse warnings, this patch fixed the ones that > were actual bugs in the new code, although we could have > made that more clear in the patch description. > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=135716576204083&w=2 Ah, thanks ... I've been on holiday for a while, so I did miss that. > There is one outstanding issue I am aware of which was an > array bounds compiler warning which looks to be a misdetection > by the compiler. Wendy and I discussed adding a BUG_ON > to stop the compiler from complaining. > > Wendy - lets queue these two changes up ASAP. They should both > be very simple changes. If it's a simple gcc bug, just ignore it. I do need you to redo the patches to remove the __dev annotations, though. We can't risk introducing a bisect killing compile breakage if Greg's tree merges before mine in the next merge window. James