linux-next: suspend tree build failure

linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 737 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

Today's linux-next build (i386 defconfig) failed like this:

drivers/base/power/main.c: In function 'device_pm_init':
drivers/base/power/main.c:59: error: 'struct dev_pm_info' has no member named 'lock'

Caused by commit ea8e84f27325d9ddc7692f728a10e0a22cd59f52 ("PM: Introduce
core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 17)") from the
suspend tree.  The i386 defconfig does not have CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME set but
does have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y ...

I have reverted that commit for today.

When you add a new CONFIG variable, it is worth doing test builds both
with it turned on and turned off ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday 18 August 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Rafael,

Hi,

> Today's linux-next build (i386 defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> drivers/base/power/main.c: In function 'device_pm_init':
> drivers/base/power/main.c:59: error: 'struct dev_pm_info' has no member named 'lock'

Argh, that line shouldn't even be there.

> Caused by commit ea8e84f27325d9ddc7692f728a10e0a22cd59f52 ("PM: Introduce
> core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 17)") from the
> suspend tree.  The i386 defconfig does not have CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME set but
> does have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y ...
> 
> I have reverted that commit for today.
> 
> When you add a new CONFIG variable, it is worth doing test builds both
> with it turned on and turned off ...

I tested it, but I broke the patch afterwards by mistake. :-(

Sorry for the trouble, I've just pushed an updated tree.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Paul Mundt]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:43:32PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 August 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > Today's linux-next build (i386 defconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > drivers/base/power/main.c: In function 'device_pm_init':
> > drivers/base/power/main.c:59: error: 'struct dev_pm_info' has no member named 'lock'
> 
> Argh, that line shouldn't even be there.
> 
> > Caused by commit ea8e84f27325d9ddc7692f728a10e0a22cd59f52 ("PM: Introduce
> > core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 17)") from the
> > suspend tree.  The i386 defconfig does not have CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME set but
> > does have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y ...
> > 
> > I have reverted that commit for today.
> > 
> > When you add a new CONFIG variable, it is worth doing test builds both
> > with it turned on and turned off ...
> 
> I tested it, but I broke the patch afterwards by mistake. :-(
> 
> Sorry for the trouble, I've just pushed an updated tree.
> 
Argh, and rebased in the process, again. This is now the second time in
as many days this has been rebased, meaning I have to throw away my topic
branch and re-create. I thought this was going to remain stable? I would
like the SH runtime PM code to get some coverage in -next, but I can't
merge it in to my tree if the suspend tree keeps rebasing every day.

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:43:32PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 August 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > Today's linux-next build (i386 defconfig) failed like this:
> > > 
> > > drivers/base/power/main.c: In function 'device_pm_init':
> > > drivers/base/power/main.c:59: error: 'struct dev_pm_info' has no member named 'lock'
> > 
> > Argh, that line shouldn't even be there.
> > 
> > > Caused by commit ea8e84f27325d9ddc7692f728a10e0a22cd59f52 ("PM: Introduce
> > > core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 17)") from the
> > > suspend tree.  The i386 defconfig does not have CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME set but
> > > does have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y ...
> > > 
> > > I have reverted that commit for today.
> > > 
> > > When you add a new CONFIG variable, it is worth doing test builds both
> > > with it turned on and turned off ...
> > 
> > I tested it, but I broke the patch afterwards by mistake. :-(
> > 
> > Sorry for the trouble, I've just pushed an updated tree.
> > 
> Argh, and rebased in the process, again. This is now the second time in
> as many days this has been rebased, meaning I have to throw away my topic
> branch and re-create. I thought this was going to remain stable? I would
> like the SH runtime PM code to get some coverage in -next, but I can't
> merge it in to my tree if the suspend tree keeps rebasing every day.

Well, my linux-next branch is not to guaranteed to be stable, just like the
entire linux-next tree.

Once the patch stops making trouble, I'll move it into my for-linus branch,
which _is_ guaranteed not to be rebased (in fact it's never rebased).

I haven't done it yet exactly because of these build problems.  Please wait
for a couple of days more for things to settle down.

Best,
Rafael

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Paul Mundt]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:40:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > Argh, and rebased in the process, again. This is now the second time in
> > as many days this has been rebased, meaning I have to throw away my topic
> > branch and re-create. I thought this was going to remain stable? I would
> > like the SH runtime PM code to get some coverage in -next, but I can't
> > merge it in to my tree if the suspend tree keeps rebasing every day.
> 
> Well, my linux-next branch is not to guaranteed to be stable, just like the
> entire linux-next tree.
> 
> Once the patch stops making trouble, I'll move it into my for-linus branch,
> which _is_ guaranteed not to be rebased (in fact it's never rebased).
> 
> I haven't done it yet exactly because of these build problems.  Please wait
> for a couple of days more for things to settle down.
> 
Ah, ok, I misunderstood the intention of your -next branch. I'll wait for
it to cool off, thanks. ;-)

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 304 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:43:32 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the trouble, I've just pushed an updated tree.

Thanks.

"Third time's the charm" :-)
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2206 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:

drivers/base/power/main.c: In function 'device_pm_wait':
drivers/base/power/main.c:218: error: 'TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE' undeclared (first use in this function)
drivers/base/power/main.c:218: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
drivers/base/power/main.c:218: error: for each function it appears in.)
drivers/base/power/main.c:218: error: implicit declaration of function 'schedule'
drivers/base/power/main.c: In function 'dbg_show_time':
drivers/base/power/main.c:514: error: implicit declaration of function 'task_pid_nr'
drivers/base/power/main.c: In function '__device_resume_noirq':
drivers/base/power/main.c:551: error: 'TASK_NORMAL' undeclared (first use in this function)
drivers/base/power/main.c: In function '__device_resume':
drivers/base/power/main.c:713: error: 'TASK_NORMAL' undeclared (first use in this function)
drivers/base/power/main.c: In function '__device_suspend_noirq':
drivers/base/power/main.c:970: error: 'TASK_NORMAL' undeclared (first use in this function)
drivers/base/power/main.c: In function '__device_suspend':
drivers/base/power/main.c:1145: error: 'TASK_NORMAL' undeclared (first use in this function)

Presumably caused by commit d43c36dc6b357fa1806800f18aa30123c747a6d1
("headers: remove sched.h from interrupt.h") from Linus' tree.

I have added the following patch for today.

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:48:27 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] suspend: using TASK_ macros requires sched.h

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 drivers/base/power/main.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
index 3b09009..fb1c648 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
 #include <linux/async.h>
 #include <linux/completion.h>
 #include <linux/time.h>
+#include <linux/sched.h>
 
 #include "../base.h"
 #include "power.h"
-- 
1.6.4.3

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 12 October 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
> 
> drivers/base/power/main.c: In function 'device_pm_wait':
> drivers/base/power/main.c:218: error: 'TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE' undeclared (first use in this function)
> drivers/base/power/main.c:218: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> drivers/base/power/main.c:218: error: for each function it appears in.)
> drivers/base/power/main.c:218: error: implicit declaration of function 'schedule'
> drivers/base/power/main.c: In function 'dbg_show_time':
> drivers/base/power/main.c:514: error: implicit declaration of function 'task_pid_nr'
> drivers/base/power/main.c: In function '__device_resume_noirq':
> drivers/base/power/main.c:551: error: 'TASK_NORMAL' undeclared (first use in this function)
> drivers/base/power/main.c: In function '__device_resume':
> drivers/base/power/main.c:713: error: 'TASK_NORMAL' undeclared (first use in this function)
> drivers/base/power/main.c: In function '__device_suspend_noirq':
> drivers/base/power/main.c:970: error: 'TASK_NORMAL' undeclared (first use in this function)
> drivers/base/power/main.c: In function '__device_suspend':
> drivers/base/power/main.c:1145: error: 'TASK_NORMAL' undeclared (first use in this function)
> 
> Presumably caused by commit d43c36dc6b357fa1806800f18aa30123c747a6d1
> ("headers: remove sched.h from interrupt.h") from Linus' tree.
> 
> I have added the following patch for today.
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:48:27 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] suspend: using TASK_ macros requires sched.h

Thanks Stephen, I added your patch below to the suspend-2.6 tree.

> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  drivers/base/power/main.c |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> index 3b09009..fb1c648 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
>  #include <linux/async.h>
>  #include <linux/completion.h>
>  #include <linux/time.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>  
>  #include "../base.h"
>  #include "power.h"

Best,
Rafael

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 283 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:44:12 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephen, I added your patch below to the suspend-2.6 tree.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

Today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig) failed like this:

kernel/power/process.c: In function 'try_to_freeze_tasks':
kernel/power/process.c:72: error: implicit declaration of function 'msleep'

Caused by commit a48145a7cbf3b0555ba3ad61aaf2c38719bab95d ("PM / freezer:
Don't get over-anxious while waiting") which I have reverted for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 510 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:

kernel/freezer.c:27: error: expected ',' or ';' before '{' token

Caused by commit 9a4801cb8df76263abbb3049c0208625b7f34286 ("PM / freezer:
Make refrigerator cold") which neglected to include linux/compiler.h for
the definition of __cold.

I have used the version of the suspend tree from next-20091002 for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday 06 October 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
> 
> kernel/freezer.c:27: error: expected ',' or ';' before '{' token
> 
> Caused by commit 9a4801cb8df76263abbb3049c0208625b7f34286 ("PM / freezer:
> Make refrigerator cold") which neglected to include linux/compiler.h for
> the definition of __cold.

Thanks for the notification.

Did you cross-compile it by chance?  It builds for me on native x86_64 with
allmodconfig, which is why I missed this issue.

> I have used the version of the suspend tree from next-20091002 for today.

I added the #include <linux/compiler.h> to freezer.h, but obviously I couldn't
verify if that fixed the problem.  Hopefully it did.

Pushing updated tree.

Best,
Rafael

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 971 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:31:55 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the notification.
> 
> Did you cross-compile it by chance?  It builds for me on native x86_64 with
> allmodconfig, which is why I missed this issue.

I cross compile all my x86 builds as my big machines are all PowerPC.

> > I have used the version of the suspend tree from next-20091002 for today.
> 
> I added the #include <linux/compiler.h> to freezer.h, but obviously I couldn't
> verify if that fixed the problem.  Hopefully it did.

My guess was wrong.  You either need to leave the __cold off the
definition in kernel/freezer.c or move it before the function name.  No
other function definition in the kernel is marked __cold, but several
declarations are.

Also __cold only generates something for gcc >= 4.3 ...  I am using 4.4.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday 07 October 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:31:55 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the notification.
> > 
> > Did you cross-compile it by chance?  It builds for me on native x86_64 with
> > allmodconfig, which is why I missed this issue.
> 
> I cross compile all my x86 builds as my big machines are all PowerPC.
> 
> > > I have used the version of the suspend tree from next-20091002 for today.
> > 
> > I added the #include <linux/compiler.h> to freezer.h, but obviously I couldn't
> > verify if that fixed the problem.  Hopefully it did.
> 
> My guess was wrong.  You either need to leave the __cold off the
> definition in kernel/freezer.c or move it before the function name.  No
> other function definition in the kernel is marked __cold, but several
> declarations are.
> 
> Also __cold only generates something for gcc >= 4.3 ...  I am using 4.4.

OK, I've dropped the patch altogether for now, will add it later.

Just pushed the updated tree.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:41:54 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> OK, I've dropped the patch altogether for now, will add it later.
> 
> Just pushed the updated tree.

OK, thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

drivers/built-in.o: In function `.device_initialize':
(.text+0x95cf4): undefined reference to `.device_pm_init'
drivers/built-in.o: In function `.device_del':
(.text+0x95ec4): undefined reference to `.device_pm_remove'
drivers/built-in.o: In function `.device_add':
(.text+0x965cc): undefined reference to `.device_pm_add'

Caused by commit 1db698d9d2c5a2f4032e620dd18c75b61eaca2c8 ("PM: Introduce
PM links framework").  This build has CONFIG_PM not set.

I have used the suspend tree from next-20091002 for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 05 October 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Rafael,

Hi,

> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `.device_initialize':
> (.text+0x95cf4): undefined reference to `.device_pm_init'
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `.device_del':
> (.text+0x95ec4): undefined reference to `.device_pm_remove'
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `.device_add':
> (.text+0x965cc): undefined reference to `.device_pm_add'
> 
> Caused by commit 1db698d9d2c5a2f4032e620dd18c75b61eaca2c8 ("PM: Introduce
> PM links framework").  This build has CONFIG_PM not set.
> 
> I have used the suspend tree from next-20091002 for today.

Thanks for the notification, I've just pushed the updated tree where this
issue should be fixed.

Best,
Rafael

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 316 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 01:55:18 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the notification, I've just pushed the updated tree where this
> issue should be fixed.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[Sorry if some get this twice, I fixed up the subject.]

Hi Rafael,

Today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig) failed like this:

drivers/base/power/runtime.c:948: error: __ksymtab_pm_runtime_disable causes a section type conflict

Caused by commit d9d4cc5169ca18df9ff5afd31c6e6b715ecb454a ("PM: Introduce
core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 17)") from the
suspend tree.  This commit EXPORTs pm_runtime_disable which is an inline
function that calls __pm_runtime_disable (which is probably what was
meant to be EXPORTed).

I wish we could get these type of errors to fail on x86 as well ...

I have applied the following patch for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:34:28 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] suspend: EXPORT the correct function.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 drivers/base/power/runtime.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
index 28a3f91..38556f6 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
@@ -945,7 +945,7 @@ void __pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev, bool check_resume)
  out:
 	spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
 }
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_disable);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__pm_runtime_disable);
 
 /**
  * pm_runtime_enable - Enable run-time PM of a device.
-- 
1.6.3.3

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 17 August 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> [Sorry if some get this twice, I fixed up the subject.]
> 
> Hi Rafael,

Hi,

> Today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig) failed like this:
> 
> drivers/base/power/runtime.c:948: error: __ksymtab_pm_runtime_disable causes a section type conflict
> 
> Caused by commit d9d4cc5169ca18df9ff5afd31c6e6b715ecb454a ("PM: Introduce
> core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 17)") from the
> suspend tree.  This commit EXPORTs pm_runtime_disable which is an inline
> function that calls __pm_runtime_disable (which is probably what was
> meant to be EXPORTed).
> 
> I wish we could get these type of errors to fail on x86 as well ...
> 
> I have applied the following patch for today.

Thanks for the patch, I'll fix up the tree later today.

Best,
Rafael

linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

drivers/built-in.o: In function `.sysdev_suspend':
(.text+0x92170): undefined reference to `.check_wakeup_irqs'

check_wakeup_irqs is defined in kernel/irq/pm.c which is only built when
CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is set (which it isn't for this build). The call to
check_wakeup_irqs was added to sysdev_suspend in commit
73263bc09332c5c8de7c60cb76b5b24e2da66b42 ("PM: Rework handling of
interrupts during suspend-resume").

I have dropped the suspend tree temporarily for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 16 March 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Rafael,

Hi,
 
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `.sysdev_suspend':
> (.text+0x92170): undefined reference to `.check_wakeup_irqs'
> 
> check_wakeup_irqs is defined in kernel/irq/pm.c which is only built when
> CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is set (which it isn't for this build). The call to
> check_wakeup_irqs was added to sysdev_suspend in commit
> 73263bc09332c5c8de7c60cb76b5b24e2da66b42 ("PM: Rework handling of
> interrupts during suspend-resume").
> 
> I have dropped the suspend tree temporarily for today.

Fixed, rebased on top of Linus' current.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: linux-next: suspend tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 258 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:07:56 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> Fixed, rebased on top of Linus' current.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]