[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: linux-next: build failure after merge of the staging tree
On 02/10/2012 11:43 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:21:46AM -0800, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>>> From: Greg KH []
>>> Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the staging tree
>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:58:00PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>> After merging the staging tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
>>>> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>>>> drivers/staging/ramster/ramster_o2net.c: In function 'ramster_remote_async_get_request_handler':
>>>> drivers/staging/ramster/ramster_o2net.c:91:2: error: implicit declaration of function
>>> 'o2net_force_data_magic' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>> drivers/staging/ramster/ramster_o2net.c: In function 'ramster_remote_put':
>>>> drivers/staging/ramster/ramster_o2net.c:250:2: error: implicit declaration of function
>>> 'o2net_nn_from_num' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>> drivers/staging/ramster/zcache-main.c:40:64: fatal error: ../zram/xvmalloc.h: No such file or
>>> directory
>>>> Caused by commits ba351b02ab11 ("staging: ramster: local compression +
>>>> tmem") and 14a3cd58dd4f ("staging: ramster: ramster-specific new files").
>>>> I have used the version of the staging tree from next-20120209 for today.
>>> Ugh, I wonder why it builds here, very odd.
>>> Dan, care to send me a patch to fix this?
>>>> drivers/staging/ramster/zcache-main.c:40:64: fatal error: ../zram/xvmalloc.h: No such
>> Hmmm... it appears that Seth's zsmalloc patch for drivers/staging/zcache
>> removed xvmalloc.[ch] from drivers/staging/zram while drivers/staging/ramster
>> is still depending on it. :-( I hadn't planned for both ramster
>> and zsmalloc-replacing-xvmalloc to be merged at the same time... I guess
>> this is exactly the kind of problem linux-next is designed to wring out!
>> Greg, FOR NOW, PLEASE JUST REVERT the ramster patchset from staging-next.
>> I am working on a v5 anyway and will roll in a copy of the xvmalloc.[ch]
>> code into it for now and, since Seth's patch should be in linux-next
>> by the time I am done (hopefully next week), I can test build ramster v5
>> with linux-next to ensure all the above problems are resolved before
>> resubmitting.
>> (Seth, I could also switch ramster v5 to depend on zsmalloc instead of
>> xvmalloc, but since I've done all my ramster testing on xvmalloc,
>> I think I would prefer to make that transition later.)
>> Sorry, Stephen and Greg, for the hassle!
> Ok, now reverted, what a mess...

Sounds like the ramster has been reverted already, but the removal
of xvmalloc was done in its own commit (from staging-next):

b154ff05e1b0d749231a71896c90e38657f8e675 staging: zram: remove xvmalloc

If you revert just this commit, that should restore the xvmalloc files.

Of course this doesn't resolve the "implicit declaration of function"


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-10 19:25    [W:0.052 / U:34.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site