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 18:04:40 +0000 Message-ID: <1357927480.11965.6.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> <1357918637.3065.22.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20130111160514.GA10823@kroah.com> <50F04D63.9080703@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]:42373 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753594Ab3AKSEo (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:04:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <50F04D63.9080703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Brian King Cc: Greg KH , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wen Xiong , linux-scsi On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 11:35 -0600, Brian King wrote: > On 01/11/2013 10:05 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 03:37:17PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > >> 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. > > > > This change should be pushed to Linus in time for 3.8-final, so there > > should not be any bisect issues. > > We can do this either way. > > James - what is your preference? Drop everything and do a resend of the > entire series or delta patches on top of what is currently in your tree? Drop everything and resend still, I think. There's still a rebase problem, because the merge failure will happen if I rebase the misc tree to beyond Greg's merge point and I'd rather not have to worry about it. Thanks, James