From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: linux-next: sparc tree build failure Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:00:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <20091126201607.023e1269.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091126.152816.233622295.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:59611 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751002AbZK0JBL (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:01:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091126.152816.233622295.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Miller Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Rothwell > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:16:07 +1100 > > > Today's linux-next build (sparc32 defconfig) failed like this: > > > > arch/sparc/lib/atomic32.c: In function '__atomic_add_return': > > arch/sparc/lib/atomic32.c:34: error: implicit declaration of function '__raw_spin_lock_irqsave' > > arch/sparc/lib/atomic32.c:38: error: implicit declaration of function '__raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore' > > > > Caused by commit 4df286e52917c95c415400367cfd523dfbb0f93a ("sparc: Make > > atomic locks raw") which I have reverted for today. > > Ho hum, that's the second iteration and it broke the build first time > too. > > __raw_spin_lock_irqsave() definitions don't exist anywhere in the > tree, I wonder what this was even build tested against? > > I'm reverting, and I'll be hard pressed to add new versions without > solid proof that it doesn't break the build a third time :-) /me blushes. Dunno what went wrong this time. Sorry. tglx