Hi all,
After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build
(s390-defconfig) failed like this:
drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c:1596:20: error: initialization of 'ssize_t (*)(const struct bus_type *, char *)' {aka 'long int (*)(const struct bus_type *, char *)'} from incompatible pointer type 'ssize_t (*)(struct bus_type *, char *)' {aka 'long int (*)(struct bus_type *, char *)'} [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
(reported here: http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/14902509/)
Caused by commit
75cff725d956 ("driver core: bus: mark the struct bus_type for sysfs callbacks as constant")
interacting with commit
d7b1813af6a5 ("s390/ap: introduce new AP bus sysfs attribute features")
from the s390 tree.
I will apply the following (currently untested) merge fix up patch from
tomorrow:
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:42:41 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "driver core: bus: mark the struct bus_type for sysfs callbacks as constant"
interacting with "s390/ap: introduce new AP bus sysfs attribute features"
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
index 85bb0de15e76..8d6b9a52bf3c 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
@@ -1570,7 +1570,7 @@ static ssize_t bindings_show(const struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
static BUS_ATTR_RO(bindings);
-static ssize_t features_show(struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
+static ssize_t features_show(const struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
{
int n = 0;
--
2.39.2
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 03:46:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build
> (s390-defconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c:1596:20: error: initialization of 'ssize_t (*)(const struct bus_type *, char *)' {aka 'long int (*)(const struct bus_type *, char *)'} from incompatible pointer type 'ssize_t (*)(struct bus_type *, char *)' {aka 'long int (*)(struct bus_type *, char *)'} [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
>
> (reported here: http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/14902509/)
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 75cff725d956 ("driver core: bus: mark the struct bus_type for sysfs callbacks as constant")
>
> interacting with commit
>
> d7b1813af6a5 ("s390/ap: introduce new AP bus sysfs attribute features")
>
> from the s390 tree.
>
> I will apply the following (currently untested) merge fix up patch from
> tomorrow:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:42:41 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "driver core: bus: mark the struct bus_type for sysfs callbacks as constant"
>
> interacting with "s390/ap: introduce new AP bus sysfs attribute features"
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
> index 85bb0de15e76..8d6b9a52bf3c 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
> @@ -1570,7 +1570,7 @@ static ssize_t bindings_show(const struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
>
> static BUS_ATTR_RO(bindings);
>
> -static ssize_t features_show(struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
> +static ssize_t features_show(const struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
Patch is correct, thank you.
s390 developers, if you have a persistent tag/branch, I can suck this
into the driver core tree and apply this fixup there so that you don't
have to deal with any merge issues for 6.4-rc1 if you want. Or I can
provide one for you if you need/want that instead. Or we can just leave
it alone and deal with it during the 6.4-rc1 merge window, your choice.
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi All,
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:33:42 +0200 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Patch is correct, thank you.
Thanks for checking.
> s390 developers, if you have a persistent tag/branch, I can suck this
> into the driver core tree and apply this fixup there so that you don't
> have to deal with any merge issues for 6.4-rc1 if you want. Or I can
> provide one for you if you need/want that instead. Or we can just leave
> it alone and deal with it during the 6.4-rc1 merge window, your choice.
Or (it being pretty trivial) you could both just let Linus know when
you send your merge requests ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 07:22:15PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:33:42 +0200 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Patch is correct, thank you.
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
> > s390 developers, if you have a persistent tag/branch, I can suck this
> > into the driver core tree and apply this fixup there so that you don't
> > have to deal with any merge issues for 6.4-rc1 if you want. Or I can
> > provide one for you if you need/want that instead. Or we can just leave
> > it alone and deal with it during the 6.4-rc1 merge window, your choice.
>
> Or (it being pretty trivial) you could both just let Linus know when
> you send your merge requests ...
True, that works for me!
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:15:16AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 07:22:15PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:33:42 +0200 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Patch is correct, thank you.
> >
> > Thanks for checking.
> >
> > > s390 developers, if you have a persistent tag/branch, I can suck this
> > > into the driver core tree and apply this fixup there so that you don't
> > > have to deal with any merge issues for 6.4-rc1 if you want. Or I can
> > > provide one for you if you need/want that instead. Or we can just leave
> > > it alone and deal with it during the 6.4-rc1 merge window, your choice.
> >
> > Or (it being pretty trivial) you could both just let Linus know when
> > you send your merge requests ...
>
> True, that works for me!
Sounds good for s390 as well, thank you!