Re: Linux 6.3.1

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 02:12:58PM +0100, Chris Clayton wrote:
> Hi Greg
> 
> On 02/05/2023 08:31, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 08:43:47AM +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 06:40:03AM +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 07:22:56AM +0100, Chris Clayton wrote:
> >>>> 6.3.1 FTBFS thusly:
> >>>
> >>> What is "FTBFS"?
> >>>
> >>>> drivers/net/wireguard/timers.c: In function 'wg_expired_retransmit_handshake':
> >>>> <command-line>: error: format '%d' expects argument of type 'int', but argument 6 has type 'long unsigned int'
> >>>> [-Werror=format=]
> >>>> <command-line>: note: in expansion of macro 'KBUILD_MODNAME'
> >>>> ./include/linux/dynamic_debug.h:223:29: note: in expansion of macro 'pr_fmt'
> >>>>   223 |                 func(&id, ##__VA_ARGS__);                       \
> >>>>       |                             ^~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> There's a patch to drivers/net/wireguard/timers.c that fixes these errors and you can find it at
> >>>> 2d4ee16d969c97996e80e4c9cb6de0acaff22c9f in Linus' tree.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for this report, we'll queue it up soon.
> >>
> >> Odd, that commit is in 6.2 already, so how are you applying this to
> >> 6.3.y?
> > 
> > And this is only a gcc13 issue, right?  So it's not a regression, it's
> > always been there, nothing new caused it in this release from what I can
> > tell.
> > 
> > Actually I don't see how this is an issue in 6.3.1 anyway, as again, the
> > proposed fix you gave is in 6.2, so what really is happening here?
> 
> You seem not to have seen the email I sent shortly after my original report. In that email I apologised for the noise
> because, due to a caffeine deficiency, I had reported the problem against the wrong kernel version and that it actually
> occurs 6.1.27. gcc13 spits it out as a warning, but kernel build system is setbup to treat warnings as errors, so the
> build fails.

Ok, but this is not a new issue, right?  6.1.26 should have had the same
problem from what I can tell.

greg k-h