From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org [140.211.169.12]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45ED72C00A8 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:43:34 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:14 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the origin tree Message-Id: <20121009164514.b7a7e227.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20121010102150.81c192c6fdf60689dc823b20@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20121010102150.81c192c6fdf60689dc823b20@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ppc-dev , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:21:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Linus, > > In Linus' tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed > like this: > > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c: In function 'pseries_remove_memblock': > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c:103:17: error: unused variable 'pfn' [-Werror=unused-variable] > > Caused by commit d760afd4d257 ("memory-hotplug: suppress "Trying to free > nonexistent resource " warning"). > > I can't see what the point of the "pfn" variable is This: --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c~a +++ a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static int pseries_remove_memblock(unsig sections_to_remove = (memblock_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) / PAGES_PER_SECTION; for (i = 0; i < sections_to_remove; i++) { unsigned long pfn = start_pfn + i * PAGES_PER_SECTION; - ret = __remove_pages(zone, start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION); + ret = __remove_pages(zone, pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION); if (ret) return ret; } > and this patch never > appeared in linux-next before being merged. :-( It was first sighted October 3. > I have reverted that commit for today. > > If this patch truly was authored yesterday (according the Author Date in > git), why was it merged yesterday while still under discussion? And the > latest update to it still has this build problem ... did anyone even try > to build this for powerpc (since that architecture was obviously > affected)? Apparently not - the ppc bit was a best-effort fixup for a patch which addresses an x86 problem.