From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Gortmaker Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] tty/serial: atmel: Include module.h to fix build failure Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:08:03 -0500 Message-ID: <5693C553.7050400@windriver.com> References: <1452363335-2535-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20160109182908.GB29967@kroah.com> <20160111083536.GB8070@sudip-pc> <20160111111101.GA18945@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160111111101.GA18945@roeck-us.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Guenter Roeck , Sudip Mukherjee Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Nicolas Ferre , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On 2016-01-11 06:11 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:05:36PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:29:08AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:15:35AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> If serial/atmel_serial.c is compiled with devicetree enabled, the >>>> following build error is observed. >>>> >>>> drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c:192:1: warning: >>>> data definition has no type or storage class >>>> drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c:192:1: error: >>>> type defaults to 'int' in declaration of 'MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE' >>>> drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c:192:1: warning: >>>> parameter names (without types) in function declaration >>>> >>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE is used to specify devicetree compatibilities. >>>> >>>> Fixes: c39dfebc7798 ("drivers/tty/serial: make serial/atmel_serial.c explicitly non-modular") >>>> Cc: Paul Gortmaker >>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >>>> --- >>>> drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> This hit my tree last night already with commit >>> 041497eb721ddbdc1e690316976dd8ba7bc136a2, so all should be fine in the >>> next linux-next release. >> >> Hi Guenter, >> Just a thought. It has happended many times that we both have sent >> patches to fix the same build fail. Maybe your patch got applied and >> mine came late or maybe mine was applied and you came late. But I think >> if we have a separate mailing list where people interested to fix and >> monitor build failures will be members and we Cc that list whenever we >> send patch for build fail and then in that case we will know that >> someone else has already sent a patch for this failure and we can invest >> the time in some other problem. >> > > Hi Sudip, > > I agree, it would make sense to have a build(/runtime?)-fixes-only mailing > list. Question though is how to limit noise on such a list and, of course, > where and how to set it up. Any thoughts ? Since most (all?) of these kind of fails are on linux-next, why not do what everyone else does, and report the fail there and/or ensure the fix is cc'd there? Before I waste time trying to fix sth on linux-next, I always google for the error msg and many times that leads me to a lkml or linux-next post where it was reported and fixed already. Paul.