Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 25 (net/sock.h, jump_label, memcg)
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 01/27/2012 01:46 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
I understand that. I wasn't saying I am not to blame, just why this wasn't catched in any test of mine before.On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:31:13 +0400 Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On the specifics of this bug, I verified this config compiles okay in your tree + my patches at the day I last sent them. I also verified it breaks on the tree today. The reason seems to be that some other patch tweaked with the header files in an unrelated patch, and the static_branch definition that was getting to us in sock.h, is no longer getting there. Including it explicitly fixes it here. I will again pass through a battery of randconfigs on my own, and send you a fix.Which is one of the reasons we have Rule 1 in Documentation/SubmitChecklist: 1: If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares that facility. Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones that you use.
The fix is on its way. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html