From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69D8F23959B; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 19:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738869728; cv=none; b=FA52W7PcIm4EO456TqQKDpS/B7hRi7y2vf8T/y6VSJFIfj82trJk4hqLXT9fAz3BuSjdZsQDz2oPO4k+kRYwScRIWttwEcCvOhFT7bWNff0AM2HzHBMiQNXztMFnL9iMaTJO9hpr6G4iT0muvgK7Kk02u9vzvigvUZUJxDTaMvo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738869728; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ancX9lQlL/W6fW5Eb650QX3pEF4pVrkA46LQBCtXkRI=; h=From:Date:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=VBRufr8CQXyQIHL16ropneYw5p4TzOOG/rGA9+wdypfIIrUpyySRDybJb6aGZMATZRgf1F8rIpUJhQuEVavkgQGzB9FyMM27frIpjIsUU4V5ZPjrOCKGHxHNjswlaLsmQtvUDTbUUPoAvgH4F1yMLGWkUdqLFb0rtXDXS7O80yI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=QkDBjTMs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="QkDBjTMs" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1738869727; x=1770405727; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=ancX9lQlL/W6fW5Eb650QX3pEF4pVrkA46LQBCtXkRI=; b=QkDBjTMsSpG3D7dFHamxcH81FY8RC/hox079bvF+bxADABufko4fNtjo 5Zjf7TX8IWCjR1HfHKde8I9j0YogfBDdkOeSs+wE41+6NqvOdI/6XeQSi bvVUh/fAD4OSBgvI10oTjDtjRJ2xOYNNaL0xEWSzRa9Wg7LjI3ya6fsmw 2XGguwpBim0ZM/8FgP9Ezuj7alqPecDqGcFehIOOlg0O+zVi4hszh6NLe 5v3rI3ozUKWF9msX1KN+eyM9oBg5VW8lQbOtW2oivm79Z80RPAD6LuaVn uBc03rRzmizcuTLXoIWex+mtY7tY9BRtaWieXwGKQ0uv6OoXe7Lp5z1ta w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: IOhob7xURieni274pMJAmg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: rtdEgJ9PRu2l8rvczkva8Q== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11314"; a="39608720" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,310,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="39608720" Received: from fmviesa002.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.142]) by orvoesa110.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2025 11:22:06 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: gTpTUo9ZQXyzYRxYdODHNQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 9Fii5jmZSimwLYhxas+YWw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,224,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="134547283" Received: from ijarvine-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.165]) by fmviesa002-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2025 11:22:04 -0800 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 21:22:02 +0200 (EET) To: Joshua Grisham cc: Stephen Rothwell , Hans de Goede , Mark Gross , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drivers-x86 tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3919fefb-13dc-699f-2355-fdbfb31dab8a@linux.intel.com> References: <20250206133652.71bbf1d3@canb.auug.org.au> <3603e5e3-b8f9-54eb-c181-03cf2679cb7f@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-335955539-1738869722=:931" This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-335955539-1738869722=:931 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, Joshua Grisham wrote: > Den tors 6 feb. 2025 kl 11:27 skrev Ilpo J=C3=A4rvinen > : > > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > After merging the drivers-x86 tree, today's linux-next build > > > (x86_64_allmodconfig) failed like this: > > > > > > In file included from include/linux/kobject.h:20, > > > from include/linux/energy_model.h:7, > > > from include/linux/device.h:16, > > > from include/linux/acpi.h:14, > > > from drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c:14: > > > drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c: In function 'galaxybook_fw= _attr_init': > > > drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c:1014:33: error: 'fw_attr' i= s a pointer; did you mean to use '->'? > > > 1014 | sysfs_attr_init(&fw_attr.display_name); > > > | ^ > > > include/linux/sysfs.h:55:10: note: in definition of macro 'sysfs_attr= _init' > > > 55 | (attr)->key =3D &__key; \ > > > | ^~~~ > > > drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c:1020:33: error: 'fw_attr' i= s a pointer; did you mean to use '->'? > > > 1020 | sysfs_attr_init(&fw_attr.current_value); > > > | ^ > > > include/linux/sysfs.h:55:10: note: in definition of macro 'sysfs_attr= _init' > > > 55 | (attr)->key =3D &__key; \ > > > | ^~~~ > > > > > > Caused by commit > > > > > > f97634611408 ("platform/x86: samsung-galaxybook: Add samsung-galaxy= book driver") > > > > > > I guess this was never built with CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC set. > > > > > > I have used the drivers-x86 tree from next-20250205 for today. > > > > Apparently it wasn't. > > > > However, I've an LKP success report for f97634611408 (prior to pushing = it > > to for-next, I always wait for LKP). > > > > Why LKP didn't catch it despite claiming it built with x86_64_allyescon= fig > > (successfully)?? Did LKP not build the tree?? > > > > I've pulled the commit from for-next until the problem is resolved to n= ot > > keep breaking builds. Joshua, could you please take a look at it. > > > > -- > > i. > > >=20 > Hi Ilpo and all, > Yes, great that there are tests in place :) Sorry this was one of the > later changes and I can't remember now when exactly I did the full > testing vs not as per the kernel documentation (as there were several > iterations to the patch for this driver) but I believe I have > identified what should be fixed and can send it shortly. >=20 > Ilpo would you prefer a patch on top of the existing patch (i.e. just > a diff of these 2 lines) or would you rather that I create a v11 of > the original patch and send the whole thing again? >=20 > Thanks again! I've kept the change in review-ilpo-next branch. An incremental patch is=20 fine (it's easier to see its correctness on a glance too).=20 --=20 i. --8323328-335955539-1738869722=:931--