From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com (e28smtp05.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A1CD2C00AB for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 05:03:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:33:16 +0530 Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by d28dlp02.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24B83940061 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:33:14 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (d28av02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.64]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s0UI37F635520696 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:33:07 +0530 Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av02.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s0UI3E33015193 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:33:14 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix compile error of pgtable-ppc64.h In-Reply-To: <20140130175514.GA29370@kroah.com> References: <1390911762-5659-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1390911762-5659-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140129184544.GA23204@kroah.com> <1391036256.8524.81.camel@pasglop> <20140130123457.GA6571@kroah.com> <8761p15pzn.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140130175514.GA29370@kroah.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:33:13 +0530 Message-ID: <8738k55ov2.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Li Zhong , stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Greg KH writes: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:08:52PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Greg KH writes: >> >> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:57:36AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> >> > > From: Li Zhong >> >> > > >> >> > > It seems that forward declaration couldn't work well with typedef, use >> >> > > struct spinlock directly to avoiding following build errors: >> >> > > >> >> > > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:81, >> >> > > from include/linux/seqlock.h:35, >> >> > > from include/linux/time.h:5, >> >> > > from include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56, >> >> > > from include/linux/timex.h:56, >> >> > > from include/linux/sched.h:17, >> >> > > from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:17: >> >> > > include/linux/spinlock_types.h:76: error: redefinition of typedef 'spinlock_t' >> >> > > /root/linux-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h:563: note: previous declaration of 'spinlock_t' was here >> >> > > >> >> > > build fix for upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f >> >> > > for 3.13 stable series >> >> > >> >> > I don't understand, why is this needed? Is there a corrisponding patch >> >> > upstream that already does this? What went wrong with a "normal" >> >> > backport of the patch to 3.13? >> >> >> >> There's a corresponding patch in powerpc-next that I'm about to send to >> >> Linus today, but for the backport, the "fix" could be folded into the >> >> original offending patch. >> > >> > Oh come on, you know better than to try to send me a patch that isn't in >> > Linus's tree already. Crap, I can't take that at all. >> > >> > Send me the git commit id when it is in Linus's tree, otherwise I'm not >> > taking it. >> > >> > And no, don't "fold in" anything, that's not ok either. I'll just go >> > drop this patch entirely from all of my -stable trees for now. Feel >> > free to resend them when all of the needed stuff is upstream. >> >> The fix for mremap crash is already in Linus tree. > > What is the git commit id? upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f That is patch 1 in this series. > >> It is the build failure for older gcc compiler version that is not in >> linus tree. > > That is what I can not take. > >> We missed that in the first pull request. Do we really need to drop >> the patch from 3.11 and 3.12 trees ? > > I already did. > >> The patch their is a variant, and don't require this build fix. > > Don't give me a "variant", give me the exact same patch, only changed to > handle the fuzz/differences of older kernels, don't make different > changes to the original patch to make up for things you found out later > on, otherwise everyone is confused as to why the fix for the fix is not > in the tree. In this specific case it may be difficult. 3.13 have other changes around the code path. It has split pmd locks etc which result in us doing a withdraw and deposit even on x86. For 3.11 and 3.12, we need to do that extra withdraw and deposit only for ppc64. Hence the variant which used #ifdef around that code. > > So, when both patches get in Linus's tree, please send me the properly > backported patches and I'll be glad to apply them. > -aneesh