kernel since 5.6 do not boot anymore on Apple PowerBook

[Christophe Leroy]

Hi Giuseppe,

Le 08/07/2020 à 20:44, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 08/07/2020 à 19:36, Giuseppe Sacco a écrit :
>> Hi Cristophe,
>>
>> Il giorno mer, 08/07/2020 alle 19.09 +0200, Christophe Leroy ha
>> scritto:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Le 08/07/2020 à 19:00, Giuseppe Sacco a écrit :
>>>> Hello,
>>>> while trying to debug a problem using git bisect, I am now at a point
>>>> where I cannot build the kernel at all. This is the error message I
>>>> get:
>>>>
>>>> $ LANG=C make ARCH=powerpc \
>>>>    CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux- \
>>>>    CONFIG_MODULE_COMPRESS_GZIP=true \
>>>>    INSTALL_MOD_STRIP=1 CONFIG_MODULE_COMPRESS=1 \
>>>>    -j4 INSTALL_MOD_PATH=$BOOT INSTALL_PATH=$BOOT \
>>>>    CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_COMPRESSED=1 \
>>>>    install modules_install
>>>> make[2]: *** No rule to make target 'vmlinux', needed by
>>>
>>> Surprising.
>>>
>>> Did you make any change to Makefiles ?
>>
>> No
>>
>>> Are you in the middle of a bisect ? If so, if the previous builds
>>> worked, I'd do 'git bisect skip'
>>
>> Yes, the previous one worked.
>>
>>> What's the result with:
>>>
>>> LANG=C make ARCH=powerpc CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux- vmlinux
>>
>> $ LANG=C make ARCH=powerpc CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux- vmlinux
>>    CALL    scripts/checksyscalls.sh
>>    CALL    scripts/atomic/check-atomics.sh
>>    CHK     include/generated/compile.h
>>    CC      kernel/module.o
>> kernel/module.c: In function 'do_init_module':
>> kernel/module.c:3593:2: error: implicit declaration of function
>> 'module_enable_ro'; did you mean 'module_enable_x'? [-Werror=implicit-
>> function-declaration]
>>   3593 |  module_enable_ro(mod, true);
>>        |  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>        |  module_enable_x
>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:267: kernel/module.o] Error 1
>> make: *** [Makefile:1735: kernel] Error 2
>>
>> So, should I 'git bisect skip'?
> 
> Ah yes, I had the exact same problem last time I bisected.
> 
> So yes do 'git bisect skip'. You'll probably hit this problem half a 
> dozen of times, but at the end you should get a usefull bisect anyway.
> 

Were you able to progress ?

Christophe