[PATCH 2/2] Fix compile error of pgtable-ppc64.h

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:08:52PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:57:36AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> > > From: Li Zhong <zhong at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> > > 
> >> > > It seems that forward declaration couldn't work well with typedef, use
> >> > > struct spinlock directly to avoiding following build errors:
> >> > > 
> >> > > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:81,
> >> > >                  from include/linux/seqlock.h:35,
> >> > >                  from include/linux/time.h:5,
> >> > >                  from include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56,
> >> > >                  from include/linux/timex.h:56,
> >> > >                  from include/linux/sched.h:17,
> >> > >                  from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:17:
> >> > > include/linux/spinlock_types.h:76: error: redefinition of typedef 'spinlock_t'
> >> > > /root/linux-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h:563: note: previous declaration of 'spinlock_t' was here
> >> > > 
> >> > > build fix for upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f
> >> > > for 3.13 stable series
> >> > 
> >> > I don't understand, why is this needed?  Is there a corrisponding patch
> >> > upstream that already does this?  What went wrong with a "normal"
> >> > backport of the patch to 3.13?
> >> 
> >> There's a corresponding patch in powerpc-next that I'm about to send to
> >> Linus today, but for the backport, the "fix" could be folded into the
> >> original offending patch.
> >
> > Oh come on, you know better than to try to send me a patch that isn't in
> > Linus's tree already.  Crap, I can't take that at all.
> >
> > Send me the git commit id when it is in Linus's tree, otherwise I'm not
> > taking it.
> >
> > And no, don't "fold in" anything, that's not ok either.  I'll just go
> > drop this patch entirely from all of my -stable trees for now.  Feel
> > free to resend them when all of the needed stuff is upstream.
> 
> The fix for mremap crash is already in Linus tree.

What is the git commit id?

> It is the build failure for older gcc compiler version that is not in
> linus tree.

That is what I can not take.

> We missed that in the first pull request. Do we really need to drop
> the patch from 3.11 and 3.12 trees ?

I already did.

> The patch their is a variant, and don't require this build fix.

Don't give me a "variant", give me the exact same patch, only changed to
handle the fuzz/differences of older kernels, don't make different
changes to the original patch to make up for things you found out later
on, otherwise everyone is confused as to why the fix for the fix is not
in the tree.

So, when both patches get in Linus's tree, please send me the properly
backported patches and I'll be glad to apply them.

greg k-h