From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
<rdunlap@xenotime.net>, <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <gleb@redhat.com>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 25 (net/sock.h, jump_label, memcg)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:47:24 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F21C9EC.60009@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120127084622.a16b0f43e6fcbd029cb1f923@canb.auug.org.au>
On 01/27/2012 01:46 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:31:13 +0400 Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com> wrote:
>>
>> On the specifics of this bug, I verified this config compiles okay in
>> your tree + my patches at the day I last sent them. I also verified it
>> breaks on the tree today.
>>
>> The reason seems to be that some other patch tweaked with the header
>> files in an unrelated patch, and the static_branch definition that was
>> getting to us in sock.h, is no longer getting there.
>>
>> Including it explicitly fixes it here. I will again pass through a
>> battery of randconfigs on my own, and send you a fix.
>
> Which is one of the reasons we have Rule 1 in Documentation/SubmitChecklist:
>
> 1: If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
> that facility. Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones
> that you use.
>
I understand that. I wasn't saying I am not to blame, just why this
wasn't catched in any test of mine before.
The fix is on its way.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-26 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20120125141938.c1a9460d56948e1c7b26d3f8@canb.auug.org.au>
2012-01-25 19:07 ` linux-next: Tree for Jan 25 (net/sock.h, jump_label, memcg) Randy Dunlap
2012-01-26 17:18 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-01-26 18:43 ` David Miller
2012-01-26 20:31 ` Glauber Costa
2012-01-26 21:46 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-01-26 21:47 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F21C9EC.60009@parallels.com \
--to=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).