Re: Blackfin STAMP537 compiling error in 2.6.25-rc8

Bryan Wu
2008-04-08T02:08:57Z

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
>
> Bryan Wu wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Bryan Wu wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > We found the latest kernel compile failed with Blackfin STAMP537
> > > > configuration on our daily build machine.
> > > > ---
> > > > CC drivers/net/smc91x.o
> > > > drivers/net/smc91x.c: In function 'smc_rcv':
> > > > drivers/net/smc91x.c:513: warning: passing argument 1 of 'insw' makes
> > > > integer from pointer without a cast
> > > > drivers/net/smc91x.c: In function 'smc_hardware_send_pkt':
> > > > drivers/net/smc91x.c:620: warning: passing argument 1 of 'outsw' makes
> > > > integer from pointer without a cast
> > > > drivers/net/smc91x.c:1859:32: error: macro "SMC_GET_MAC_ADDR" requires
> > > > 2 arguments, but only 1 given
> > > > drivers/net/smc91x.c: In function 'smc_probe':
> > > > drivers/net/smc91x.c:1859: error: 'SMC_GET_MAC_ADDR' undeclared (first
> > > > use in this function)
> > > > drivers/net/smc91x.c:1859: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
> > > > reported only once
> > > > drivers/net/smc91x.c:1859: error: for each function it appears in.)
> > > > make[2]: *** [drivers/net/smc91x.o] Error 1
> > > > make[1]: *** [drivers/net] Error 2
> > > > make: *** [drivers] Error 2
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > That is because my -mm tree fixing bug patch:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> (http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=9e6db60825ef7e7999abc610ce256ba768e58162)
> > >
> > > > was merged into mainline before the smc91x API change patch in -mm:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.25-rc5/2.6.25-rc5-mm1/broken-out/smc91x-pass-along-private-data-v2.patch
> > >
> > > > Did I miss something here? or this patch is on the way before 2.6.25
> > > > final release?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > It looks like I missed something... I thought akpm was going to send
> the
> > > patch for -mm in?
> > >
> > > If not, let's revert this one...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ok, no problem, it is ok for me.
> >
>
> Cool.
>
> David or Linus, please revert 9e6db60825ef7e7999abc610ce256ba768e58162
>
> It was merged without the API it needed, causing build breakage.
>
> Acked-by: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@redhat.com>
>
>

Thanks a lot.

>
> Andrew,
>
> Since it was an arch patch to a driver I cannot build, I made the
> [mistaken] assumption that your sending it to me was an indication that it
> should actually be merged :) Especially with a subject like "fix build
> breakage", for a platform I cannot easily build...
>
> Are there any process tweaks that could be made here? Maybe -mm stuff sent
> to maintainers could be tagged, noting dependencies on other -mm patches
> that are not yet upstream?
>

Oh, IMO, this confusing is initially introduced by me. I should choose
more meaningful name of this patch.
such as smc91x-pass-along-private-data-v2-fix-build-fail-on-blackfin.patch.
Then things become more clear for everyone.

-Bryan