Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 25 (net/sock.h, jump_label, memcg)

From: Glauber Costa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:47:24 +0400

On 01/27/2012 01:46 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:31:13 +0400 Glauber Costa<[email-masked]>  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.