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:
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.

I understand that. I wasn't saying I am not to blame, just why this wasn't catched in any test of mine before.

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

[Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux