From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752738Ab2IFLbA (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:31:00 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:40943 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751402Ab2IFLaH (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:30:07 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,380,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="189511724" Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:47:52 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Greg KH , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Shiyan Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tty tree Message-ID: <20120906124752.13831179@bob.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120906151014.c5b6be5dfbbcf3e516d7d70c@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20120906151014.c5b6be5dfbbcf3e516d7d70c@canb.auug.org.au> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Organisation: Intel Corporation UK Ltd, registered no. 1134945 (England), Registered office Pipers Way, Swindon, SN3 1RJ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:10:14 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Greg, > > After merging the tty tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 > allmodconfig) failed like this: > > In file included from drivers/tty/serial/sccnxp.c:20:0: > include/linux/serial_core.h: In function 'uart_handle_break': > include/linux/serial_core.h:543:30: error: dereferencing pointer to > incomplete type > > Caused by commit 1d65c0b12656 ("serial: New serial driver SCCNXP"). > This seems to be just exposing a preexisting problem with > linux/serial_core.h: when SUPPORT_SYSRQ is defined, this header > depends on linux/console.h. I can only imagein that every other use > of serial_core.h pre-includes (maybe indirectly) console.h (or > doesn't define SUPPORT_SYSRQ). > > I have applied the following patch, but a better solution should be > figured out. I think thats actually probably the right patch. Better to keep the header explicit than try and build some tangled mess of recursive includes. Acked-by: Alan Cox