linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (sparc, ptrace trees related)

linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (sparc, ptrace trees related)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2312 bytes --]

Hi All,

After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig)
failed like this:

arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c: In function 'handle_signal':
arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c:482:11: error: unused variable 'blocked' [-Werror=unused-variable]

Caused by my merge of commits faddf598f0ba ("sparc: Use
set_current_blocked()") form the sparc tree and 383fe35697e4 ("sparc: Use
set_current_blocked() and block_sigmask()") from the ptrace tree.

I have added the following merge fix patch for today.

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:58:53 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] sparc: fix mismerge of signal*.c

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 arch/sparc/kernel/signal32.c  |    1 -
 arch/sparc/kernel/signal_32.c |    1 -
 arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c |    1 -
 3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/signal32.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/signal32.c
index 74a5dde..22b7c6a 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/signal32.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/signal32.c
@@ -776,7 +776,6 @@ static inline int handle_signal32(unsigned long signr, struct k_sigaction *ka,
 				  siginfo_t *info,
 				  sigset_t *oldset, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	sigset_t blocked;
 	int err;
 
 	if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_SIGINFO)
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/signal_32.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/signal_32.c
index 9e005b6..b3a2229 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/signal_32.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/signal_32.c
@@ -465,7 +465,6 @@ static inline int
 handle_signal(unsigned long signr, struct k_sigaction *ka,
 	      siginfo_t *info, sigset_t *oldset, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	sigset_t blocked;
 	int err;
 
 	if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_SIGINFO)
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c
index 26560e9..27332cd 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c
@@ -479,7 +479,6 @@ static inline int handle_signal(unsigned long signr, struct k_sigaction *ka,
 				siginfo_t *info,
 				sigset_t *oldset, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	sigset_t blocked;
 	int err;
 
 	err = setup_rt_frame(ka, regs, signr, oldset,
-- 
1.7.7

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (sparc, ptrace trees related)

[David Miller]

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:07:14 +1100

> After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c: In function 'handle_signal':
> arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c:482:11: error: unused variable 'blocked' [-Werror=unused-variable]
> 
> Caused by my merge of commits faddf598f0ba ("sparc: Use
> set_current_blocked()") form the sparc tree and 383fe35697e4 ("sparc: Use
> set_current_blocked() and block_sigmask()") from the ptrace tree.
> 
> I have added the following merge fix patch for today.

They didn't build test the original version of the signal patches I
put into the sparc tree either, which is why I fixed them up and put
them into the sparc GIT tree.

Ptrace folks can we not operate like this?  The only reason I found
out about the set_current_blocked() transformations was by accident,
because the original patch was posted to linux-kernel only so it never
got queued up into sparc patchwork.

Then once Oleg mentioned it to me, it didn't even compile so I fixed
it up and put the fixed up copy into my tree.  It also didn't
transform the TS_RESTORE_SIGMASK cases in the sparc signal code, so I
also added a patch to the sparc tree which took care of that.

Now you guys are creating conflicts against those fixed up patches in
another non-sparc tree, and adding new kinds of build failures as
well.

This doesn't work.

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (sparc, ptrace trees related)

[Matt Fleming]

On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 03:54 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> Ptrace folks can we not operate like this?  The only reason I found
> out about the set_current_blocked() transformations was by accident,
> because the original patch was posted to linux-kernel only so it never
> got queued up into sparc patchwork.
> 
> Then once Oleg mentioned it to me, it didn't even compile so I fixed
> it up and put the fixed up copy into my tree.  It also didn't
> transform the TS_RESTORE_SIGMASK cases in the sparc signal code, so I
> also added a patch to the sparc tree which took care of that.
> 
> Now you guys are creating conflicts against those fixed up patches in
> another non-sparc tree, and adding new kinds of build failures as
> well.
> 
> This doesn't work.

Sorry David, this is my fault.

The reason that these patches couldn't be taken through the arch trees
was because they were dependent on the non-arch patch that introduced
block_sigmask(). I figured it would make more sense to put all the
patches through Oleg's tree. It's now pretty clear I was wrong about
that.

In hindsight, what I should have done was got the first patch that
introduced block_sigmask() into 3.1, then waited till the next release
cycle and sent out all the arch patches to the arch maintainers. That
way the patches could have been pulled into the respective arch trees.

Guys, how did you want to sort this out? Should we get the first patch
into 3.1, then get all the arch maintainers to pick up their patches?

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (sparc, ptrace trees related)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1222 bytes --]

Hi Dave,

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:54:59 -0400 (EDT) David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:07:14 +1100
> 
> > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig)
> > failed like this:
> > 
> > arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c: In function 'handle_signal':
> > arch/sparc/kernel/signal_64.c:482:11: error: unused variable 'blocked' [-Werror=unused-variable]
> > 
> > Caused by my merge of commits faddf598f0ba ("sparc: Use
> > set_current_blocked()") form the sparc tree and 383fe35697e4 ("sparc: Use
> > set_current_blocked() and block_sigmask()") from the ptrace tree.
> > 
> > I have added the following merge fix patch for today.
> 
> Now you guys are creating conflicts against those fixed up patches in
> another non-sparc tree, and adding new kinds of build failures as
> well.

To be a little fair, this particular build failure was caused because
when I did the merge, I didn't notice that the "blocked" variables needed
to be removed.  But otherwise, I defer to your knowledge.

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (sparc, ptrace trees related)

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 10/14, David Miller wrote:
>
> Now you guys are creating conflicts against those fixed up patches in
> another non-sparc tree, and adding new kinds of build failures as
> well.
>
> This doesn't work.

Sorry David and Stephen.

Stephen, could you please temporary remove ptrace from linux-next?

I'll send you another email once I fix the conflicts, can't do this
right now.

Oleg.

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (sparc, ptrace trees related)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 583 bytes --]

Hi Oleg,

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:09:50 +0200 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/14, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > Now you guys are creating conflicts against those fixed up patches in
> > another non-sparc tree, and adding new kinds of build failures as
> > well.
> >
> > This doesn't work.
> 
> Sorry David and Stephen.
> 
> Stephen, could you please temporary remove ptrace from linux-next?

OK, I have removed it until you tell me otherwise.

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]