From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:13:07 -0800 Message-ID: <20120104231307.GA4604@kroah.com> References: <20111228174518.721624fad9d048f9f85b3d50@canb.auug.org.au> <20120103162108.GC25909@kroah.com> <20120104003116.GC22350@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:59334 "EHLO out5.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752281Ab2ADXPS (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:15:18 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D4020C3C for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:15:18 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Kay Sievers Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:03:54PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 01:31, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:07:52AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 17:21, Greg KH wrote: > >> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 05:45:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote= : > >> >> Because of the powerpc problems above, I have used the driver-c= ore tree > >> >> from next-20111222 for today. > >> > > >> > Sorry about all of the problems, we tried to fix everything we c= ould, > >> > but your merges and cross-builds found stuff we missed :( > >> > > >> > Kay, care to send me patches to fix this, and all of the other > >> > linux-next-reported problems to me so we can get this resolved t= his > >> > week? > >> > >> I rather don't want to add error checking to stuff that doesn't do= it > >> today. The sysdev stuff never had that forced checks, but the norm= al > >> device stuff has. > > > > That's fine. > > > >> I think the force return value check is really a pretty misguided = idea > >> in general, and it's up to the caller to do these checks and handl= e > >> rollbacks, not the driver core, I think. > >> > >> Can't we just remove that forced check? > > > > Probably, if it fixes these warning-is-an-error problems. =A0There = were > > other issues with linux-next that were build issues, not just this = one > > from what I recall, that kept Stephen from including the tree in > > linux-next. =A0I can bounce them to you if you missed them. >=20 > Oh, I thought that was all: "I fixed it up (see below) and can carry > the fix as necessary" material. >=20 > I might have missed some stuff, I don't see any others. Care to check > yours and let me know? Ok, I think you are right, I've pushed the "remove __must_check" patch to driver-core-next and hopefully it should all be good now. thanks, greg k-h