From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte•hu>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix•de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor•com>,
linux-next@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: x86 tree build failure
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:58:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080617055816.GA13556@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080617134615.d70be9f6.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) after merging the x86 tree
> failed like this:
>
> In file included from arch/x86/kernel/setup_64.c:34:
> include/linux/acpi.h:97:1: warning: "NR_NODE_MEMBLKS" redefined
> In file included from include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h:59,
> from include/acpi/platform/acenv.h:140,
> from include/acpi/acpi.h:54,
> from include/linux/acpi.h:39,
> from arch/x86/kernel/setup_64.c:34:
> include2/asm/acpi.h:165:1: warning: this is the location of the previous definition
>
> NR_NODE_MEMBLKS is defined in linux/acpi.h if CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PARSE_SRAT
> is defined and in asm-x86/acpi.h if CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA and CONFIG_X86_64
> are defined ...
that's not really the x86 tree's fault, i've been carrying the fix for
that problem in tip/out-of-tree for 1.5 months:
| commit d94325315f241f86bd07a2ce113cbf28dc98de72
| Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte•hu>
| Date: Thu May 1 09:51:47 2008 +0000
|
| acpi-acpi_numa_init-build-fix
|
| x86.git testing found the following build error on latest -git:
|
| drivers/acpi/numa.c: In function 'acpi_numa_init':
| drivers/acpi/numa.c:226: error: 'NR_NODE_MEMBLKS' undeclared (first use in
| drivers/acpi/numa.c:226: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported onl
| drivers/acpi/numa.c:226: error: for each function it appears in.)
> Lots of the above, as well as:
>
> arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c:101: error: syntax error before 'do'
> arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c:108: error: syntax error before 'do'
> arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c:113: error: syntax error before 'if'
>
> and it went down hill from here ...
>
> srat_64.c is built if CONFIG_X86_32 is *not* 'y' and CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA is
> 'y' while in include/linux/acpi.h, acpi_numa_slit_init,
> acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init, acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init and
> acpi_numa_arch_fixup are all macros if CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PARSE_SRAT is
> defined.
>
> So we have CONFIG_X86_64, CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA and
> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PARSE_SRAT all defined.
>
> I have no idea how (or time) to fix this, so the x86 tree is dropped for
> today. [...]
hm, i guess you mean you went back to the previous version?
> [...] If you guys are going to auto generate a tree for me each day,
> then you need to test build it a bit, please.
i _did_ test it prior pushing it out and it passed 30 build+boot
iterations until it ran into that tip/out-of-tree fix. I decided not to
add it to auto-x86-next because it does not belong into the x86 tree.
you could also revert:
| commit 6ca7b49a8d6ca765426540c8902d89f1345b14af
| Author: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail•com>
| Date: Fri Jun 6 19:54:25 2008 -0700
|
| x86: add SRAT parsing to 64-bit
which makes that acpi build bug not trigger in allmodconfig. But this
just obscures the bug.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-17 5:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-17 3:46 linux-next: x86 tree build failure Stephen Rothwell
2008-06-17 5:58 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-06-17 6:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-17 6:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-18 5:04 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-06-18 6:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-25 3:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-07-17 2:07 Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-17 9:23 ` Vegard Nossum
2008-07-18 20:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-18 20:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-19 12:11 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-08-25 10:22 Stephen Rothwell
2008-08-25 10:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-11 23:56 Stephen Rothwell
2008-09-12 6:05 ` Joerg Roedel
2008-09-12 7:31 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-09-12 7:54 ` Joerg Roedel
2008-09-12 8:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-14 19:52 ` Stephen Rothwell
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=20080617055816.GA13556@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte$(echo .)hu \
--cc=hpa@zytor$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix$(echo .)de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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