lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] EFI urgent fixes
From
Date
On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 12:44 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep, at 01:27:34PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> >
> > This Makefile was changed in the first patch. That became 84be880560fb
> > ("Revert "efi/x86: efistub: Move shared dependencies to <asm/efi.h>""),
> > which just landed in next-20140926.
> >
> > It appears to have introduced a typo, because:
> > CONFIG_EFI_ARM_STUB
> >
> > should probably have been:
> > CONFIG_EFI_ARMSTUB
>
> Crap. Thanks for catching that Paul. I'm wondering how this slipped
> through because that commit has an explicit Tested-by from Leif.
>
> Hell, even I built an arm64 EFI kernel before sending that commit.
>
> Ohh.. I see why no one caught this. From arch/arm64/Makefile,
>
> libs-$(CONFIG_EFI_STUB) += drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/
>
> so libstub will be built for arm64 regardless of the broken logic in
> drivers/firmware/efi/Makefile.
>
> Paul, how did you notice the typo? Did you hit an explicit build
> failure? It's definitely wrong and I'm trying to figure out whether I
> need to add some more testing to my build infrastructure to catch this
> kind of problem in the future.

I have a 800 line perl monster that checks for stuff like this. It's not
very sophisticated but smart enough to spot typos like this one. I try
to have it check each linux-next (and mainline) release.

(I think Valentin Rothberg is trying to automate this properly. See
http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2014/ocw/sessions/1863 .)

> The next question is: should we fix this up at this point in the merge
> cycle? It's basically just dead code.


Paul Bolle



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-26 14:21    [W:0.142 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site