[PATCH 2/2] Fix compile error of pgtable-ppc64.h
benh at kernel.crashing.org
Fri Jan 31 07:59:01 EST 2014
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 09:55 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?
Relax Greg :-) The submissions all had the commit ID of the original
patch upsteam: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f
The only *thing* here is due to churn upstream in 3.13, the backport
is a bit different for 3.13 vs. earlier versions.
The earlier ones are perfectly kosher and you should have no reason
not to take them.
The 3.13, well, Mahesh was a bit quick here, he sent you the actual
patch that went upstream ... and a second patch to fix a problem
with older gcc's that it introduces. Because it's a simple build fix of
the previous patch, I suggested folding it in instead.
That build fix is what is not yet upstream, it's in my -next branch
which Linus hasn't pulled just yet.
If that's an issue for you, just drop the 3.13 variant of the patch and
we'll send it again with the build fix as soon as Linus has pulled the
> > 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.
The backport patch is a "variant" because of changes in the affected
function that went into 3.13.
> So, when both patches get in Linus's tree, please send me the properly
> backported patches and I'll be glad to apply them.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev