From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752796AbeC1Sda (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:33:30 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:51954 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752457AbeC1Sd2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:33:28 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20180328184125.3dbcfbf5@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:32:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180328184125.3dbcfbf5@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:41:25 +1100") Message-ID: <87efk4aw5i.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1f1Ft0-0001Ep-DF;;;mid=<87efk4aw5i.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.3.145.25;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+amowMDpnpG+9+v+hA0ZYWAFFwnR4B44I= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.145.25 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Stephen Rothwell X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 727 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.22 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 10 (1.4%), b_tie_ro: 8 (1.1%), parse: 1.80 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 31 (4.3%), get_uri_detail_list: 2.6 (0.4%), tests_pri_-1000: 11 (1.6%), tests_pri_-950: 2.8 (0.4%), tests_pri_-900: 2.2 (0.3%), tests_pri_-400: 33 (4.5%), check_bayes: 30 (4.2%), b_tokenize: 11 (1.5%), b_tok_get_all: 8 (1.2%), b_comp_prob: 4.5 (0.6%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.7 (0.4%), b_finish: 0.85 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 335 (46.1%), check_dkim_signature: 1.08 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 4.9 (0.7%), tests_pri_500: 293 (40.3%), poll_dns_idle: 279 (38.4%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi Eric, > > After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: > > In file included from include/linux/sched.h:16:0, > from arch/powerpc/lib/xor_vmx_glue.c:14: > include/linux/shm.h:17:35: error: 'struct file' declared inside parameter list will not be visible outside of this definition or declaration [-Werror] > bool is_file_shm_hugepages(struct file *file); > ^~~~ > > and many, many more (most warnings, but some errors - arch/powerpc is > mostly built with -Werror) > > Maybe caused by commit > > 1a5c1349d105 ("sem: Move struct sem and struct sem_array into ipc/sem.c") > > I have appplied the following fix patch for today: > > From: Stephen Rothwell > Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:36:27 +1100 > Subject: [PATCH] fix up for struct file no longer being available in shm.h > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell Applied. With the addition of: > I dug through this and I discovered that the error was caused by the > removal of struct shmid_kernel from shm.h when building on powerpc. > Except for observing the existence of "struct file *shm_file" in > struct shmid_kernel I have no clue why the structure move would > cause such a failure. I suspect shm.h always needed the forward > declaration and someting had been confusing gcc into not issuing the > warning. --EWB > > Fixes: a2e102cd3cdd ("shm: Move struct shmid_kernel into ipc/shm.c") Has anyone ever seen anything like that? Eric