From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (tip tree related) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 17:28:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20100802162810.GB4755@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20100803022310.bec3ba79.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100803022310.bec3ba79.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:23:10AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Lots (if not all) of the arm builds failed for next-20100802 with these > errors: > > arch/arm/mm/init.c: In function 'arm_bootmem_init': > arch/arm/mm/init.c:184: error: implicit declaration of function 'memblock_start_pfn' > arch/arm/mm/init.c:186: error: implicit declaration of function 'memblock_end_pfn' > arch/arm/mm/init.c:188: error: implicit declaration of function 'memblock_size_bytes' > > Caused by commit 53e16bfaf19346f59b3502e207aa66c61332075c ("memblock: > Introduce for_each_memblock() and new accessors, and use it") interacting > with commit 2778f62056ada442414392d7ccd41188bb631619 ("ARM: initial LMB > trial") and some others from the arm tree. Please, no, don't break the memblock code now. I'm not reworking the ARM implementation just as the merge window has opened - especially as the ARM implementation has now been pulled into other people's trees. If there's changes to memblock which haven't been in linux-next (which, as this is a new failure, that is most definitely the case), then they shouldn't be going into this merge window. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: