Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:46:58 -0400 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5.5 00/65] 5.5.11-rc1 review |
| |
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 08:15:40AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >On 3/19/20 7:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 07:44:33AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 3/19/20 6:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.5.11 release. >>>> There are 65 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >>>> let me know. >>>> >>>> Responses should be made by Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:37:04 +0000. >>>> Anything received after that time might be too late. >>>> >>> >>> arm:davinci_all_defconfig fails to build. >>> >>> include/linux/gpio/driver.h: In function 'gpiochip_populate_parent_fwspec_twocell': >>> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:552:1: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type] >>> 552 | } >>> >>> The problem is caused by commit 8db6a5905e98 ("gpiolib: Add support for the >>> irqdomain which doesn't use irq_fwspec as arg") which is missing its fix, >>> commit 9c6722d85e922 ("gpio: Fix the no return statement warning"). That one >>> is missing a Fixes: tag, providing a good example why such tags are desirable. >> >> Thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped that patch (others >> complained about it for other reasons) and will push out a -rc2 with >> that fix. >> > >I did wonder why the offending patch was included, but then I figured that >I lost the "we apply too many patches to stable releases" battle, and I didn't >want to re-litigate it.
I usually much rather take prerequisite patches rather than do backports, which is why that patch was selected.
-- Thanks, Sasha
| |