Hi Linus, Alan,
Today's linux-next (actually just Linus' tree) build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c: In function 'receive_chars':
drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c:275: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
drivers/serial/icom.c: In function 'recv_interrupt':
drivers/serial/icom.c:733: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
drivers/serial/icom.c | 2 +-
drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/serial/icom.c b/drivers/serial/icom.c
index 9c2df5c..2b7531d 100644
--- a/drivers/serial/icom.c
+++ b/drivers/serial/icom.c
@@ -730,7 +730,7 @@ static void xmit_interrupt(u16 port_int_reg, struct icom_port *icom_port)
static void recv_interrupt(u16 port_int_reg, struct icom_port *icom_port)
{
short int count, rcv_buff;
- struct tty_struct *tty = icom_port->uart_port.info->tty;
+ struct tty_struct *tty = icom_port->uart_port.info->port.tty;
unsigned short int status;
struct uart_icount *icount;
unsigned long offset;
diff --git a/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c b/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c
index 7ad2192..8fcb4c5 100644
--- a/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c
+++ b/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static void serial_txx9_initialize(struct uart_port *port)
static inline void
receive_chars(struct uart_txx9_port *up, unsigned int *status)
{
- struct tty_struct *tty = up->port.info->tty;
+ struct tty_struct *tty = up->port.info->port.tty;
unsigned char ch;
unsigned int disr = *status;
int max_count = 256;
--
1.5.6.2
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:25:20AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Linus, Alan,
>
> Today's linux-next (actually just Linus' tree) build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c: In function 'receive_chars':
> drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c:275: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
> drivers/serial/icom.c: In function 'recv_interrupt':
> drivers/serial/icom.c:733: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
That's the same pair of patches I sent earlier, which apparently were
"Already in the ttydev tree" which should be in linux-next ?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
Hi Dave,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:38:14 -0400 Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That's the same pair of patches I sent earlier, which apparently were
> "Already in the ttydev tree" which should be in linux-next ?
Indeed.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:25:20 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Linus, Alan,
>
> Today's linux-next (actually just Linus' tree) build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
Yes I know.
I've been trying to get the other patches merged but each of the five
pulls of Linus tree I have done has broken the tty patch merges *AGAIN*
so I still don't have them tested and ready to merge despite it being 3AM.
So much for the linux-next tree. Please give it until tomorrow or you are
just going to break the tree again and mean I have to run another set of
tests and regressions.
Alan
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:38:14 -0400
Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:25:20AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Linus, Alan,
> >
> > Today's linux-next (actually just Linus' tree) build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c: In function 'receive_chars':
> > drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c:275: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
> > drivers/serial/icom.c: In function 'recv_interrupt':
> > drivers/serial/icom.c:733: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
>
> That's the same pair of patches I sent earlier, which apparently were
> "Already in the ttydev tree" which should be in linux-next ?
And are in Linux next, and would be in the Linus submission queue except
that everyone keeps patching tty files from other trees.
<mutter>
Alan
Hi Alan,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:58:50 +0100 Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yes I know.
Indeed, you knew before you pushed the breaking patches to Linus.
> I've been trying to get the other patches merged but each of the five
> pulls of Linus tree I have done has broken the tty patch merges *AGAIN*
> so I still don't have them tested and ready to merge despite it being 3AM.
Then why weren't the fixes rolled back into the original patch or at
least submitted at the same time?
> So much for the linux-next tree. Please give it until tomorrow or you are
What is your problem with the linux-next tree. The problem was
discovered and reported when I first merged the ttydev tree into
linux-next on July 1. The fixes were in linux-next on July 2.
> just going to break the tree again and mean I have to run another set of
> tests and regressions.
Please give what until tomorrow?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
> What is your problem with the linux-next tree. The problem was
> discovered and reported when I first merged the ttydev tree into
> linux-next on July 1. The fixes were in linux-next on July 2.
Yes .. and ? The clashes kept happening despite that when I was doing the
merges (and going on holiday for a week and trying to sort it out with
limited time and internet access)
Sorry I don't follow your line of discussion at all here ?
> > just going to break the tree again and mean I have to run another set of
> > tests and regressions.
>
> Please give what until tomorrow?
it - the situation. The patches have all gone to Linus.
Alan
Hi Alan,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:44:36 +0100 Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > What is your problem with the linux-next tree. The problem was
> > discovered and reported when I first merged the ttydev tree into
> > linux-next on July 1. The fixes were in linux-next on July 2.
>
> Yes .. and ? The clashes kept happening despite that when I was doing the
> merges (and going on holiday for a week and trying to sort it out with
> limited time and internet access)
>
> Sorry I don't follow your line of discussion at all here ?
I interpreted your "So much for the linux-next tree" as saying "well,
that has been no help". I am sorry if I got that wrong.
But my point above is that you had a fix for the current breakage in
Linus' tree a couple of weeks before you sent the patches to Linus that
broke the powerpc build (i.e. linux-next did its job) and yet you didn't
combine the fix with the original patch or send the fix with the original
patch. So we end up with a powerpc tree that won't build in the middle
of the merge window while more powerpc patches are trying to be
tested ... I understand that this could easily happen because of
forgetfulness, tiredness or accident.
More care was needed.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
> I interpreted your "So much for the linux-next tree" as saying "well,
> that has been no help". I am sorry if I got that wrong.
True it didn't help in the merge that much this time. I don't think that
is a problem with the linux-next tree but one of the lack of tty
maintainer and tty tree letting the confusion occur in the first place -
plus a large quantity of first time around ineptness on my part.
> But my point above is that you had a fix for the current breakage in
> Linus' tree a couple of weeks before you sent the patches to Linus that
> broke the powerpc build (i.e. linux-next did its job) and yet you didn't
> combine the fix with the original patch or send the fix with the original
> patch. So we end up with a powerpc tree that won't build in the middle
> of the merge window while more powerpc patches are trying to be
> tested ... I understand that this could easily happen because of
> forgetfulness, tiredness or accident.
I really expected to get the rest merged within an hour or two, but then
it broke, then I was travelling and each time I got wireless access to
resync the tree and work on it - it broke again and again and again.
Next time I will bump the patch up the pile and get it out earlier when
that occurs.
Alan
Hi Alan,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:59:29 +0100 Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I really expected to get the rest merged within an hour or two, but then
> it broke, then I was travelling and each time I got wireless access to
> resync the tree and work on it - it broke again and again and again.
>
> Next time I will bump the patch up the pile and get it out earlier when
> that occurs.
Excellent.
Just asking: do you have an aversion for merging fixes back into
patches? Not a problem, just so I know. Different people work
differently.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/