From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755339Ab2ADAc0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:32:26 -0500 Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:51715 "EHLO out5.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755316Ab2ADAcX (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:32:23 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: s7EELm0xesNmqRL+HTiORByFkZ+9wefL23dYJ97Gqzcv 1325637142 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 16:31:16 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Kay Sievers Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree Message-ID: <20120104003116.GC22350@kroah.com> References: <20111228174518.721624fad9d048f9f85b3d50@canb.auug.org.au> <20120103162108.GC25909@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:07:52AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 17:21, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 05:45:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Because of the powerpc problems above, I have used the driver-core tree > >> from next-20111222 for today. > > > > Sorry about all of the problems, we tried to fix everything we could, > > but your merges and cross-builds found stuff we missed :( > > > > Kay, care to send me patches to fix this, and all of the other > > linux-next-reported problems to me so we can get this resolved this > > week? > > I rather don't want to add error checking to stuff that doesn't do it > today. The sysdev stuff never had that forced checks, but the normal > device stuff has. That's fine. > I think the force return value check is really a pretty misguided idea > in general, and it's up to the caller to do these checks and handle > rollbacks, not the driver core, I think. > > Can't we just remove that forced check? Probably, if it fixes these warning-is-an-error problems. There were other issues with linux-next that were build issues, not just this one from what I recall, that kept Stephen from including the tree in linux-next. I can bounce them to you if you missed them. thanks, greg k-h