From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: next-20160210 build: 2 failures 4 warnings (next-20160210) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:04:23 +0100 Message-ID: <16562444.Cferkf96V2@wuerfel> References: <20160210095252.GS13270@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mark Brown , "Gautham R. Shenoy" , kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org, Viresh Kumar , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 10 February 2016 15:27:48 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 09:12:25AM +0000, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Today's -next fails to build on non-SMP configurations due to: > > > >> arm-multi_v5_defconfig > >> ../drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c:251:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'irq_work_queue_on' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > > caused by 0144fa03ef4606ae (cpufreq: governor: Replace timers with > > utilization update callbacks). IS_ENABLED() in an if statement doesn't > > do a good job of making things conditional here since the code still has > > to compile cleanly in both cases and there is no definition at all of > > irq_work_queue_on() for !SMP. > > Thanks for the report! > > OK, I'll change it to #ifdef/#else then. > I have a better idea, patch follows. Arnd