Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:47:24 +0400 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 25 (net/sock.h, jump_label, memcg) |
| |
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.
| |