From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian King Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the scsi tree Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:35:31 -0600 Message-ID: <50F04D63.9080703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20130111120323.cdc06081d0fb1c498c9f1779@canb.auug.org.au> <1357889656.3065.2.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <50F02F4E.4070804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1357918637.3065.22.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20130111160514.GA10823@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130111160514.GA10823@kroah.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Greg KH , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wen Xiong , linux-scsi List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 01/11/2013 10:05 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 03:37:17PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: >> On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 09:27 -0600, Brian King wrote: >>> It looks like this was a due to the fact that the new patches >>> added __devinit tags in the same merge window the __devinit tag >>> itself was getting removed. >> >> Not exactly. The patch which makes them nops went into 3.8. Now >> there's a patch queued in, Gregs tree I presume, to remove them all and >> the #defines which causes the compile failure. >> >>> As to the sparse warnings, this patch fixed the ones that >>> were actual bugs in the new code, although we could have >>> made that more clear in the patch description. >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=135716576204083&w=2 >> >> Ah, thanks ... I've been on holiday for a while, so I did miss that. >> >>> There is one outstanding issue I am aware of which was an >>> array bounds compiler warning which looks to be a misdetection >>> by the compiler. Wendy and I discussed adding a BUG_ON >>> to stop the compiler from complaining. >>> >>> Wendy - lets queue these two changes up ASAP. They should both >>> be very simple changes. >> >> If it's a simple gcc bug, just ignore it. >> >> I do need you to redo the patches to remove the __dev annotations, >> though. We can't risk introducing a bisect killing compile breakage if >> Greg's tree merges before mine in the next merge window. > > This change should be pushed to Linus in time for 3.8-final, so there > should not be any bisect issues. We can do this either way. James - what is your preference? Drop everything and do a resend of the entire series or delta patches on top of what is currently in your tree? Thanks, Brian -- Brian King Power Linux I/O IBM Linux Technology Center