Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:08:48 +0800 | From | "Bryan Wu" <> | Subject | Re: Blackfin STAMP537 compiling error in 2.6.25-rc8 |
| |
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
|  |