Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757389AbaJIQHv (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:07:51 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:45753 "EHLO mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751197AbaJIQHn (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:07:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:07:37 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Linus Walleij Cc: Josh Boyer , torvalds@linuxfoundation.org, Josh Cartwright , Pramod Gurav , Bjorn Andersson , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: pinctrl-msm build error on Linus' tree Message-ID: <20141009160737.GE31987@roeck-us.net> References: <20141008231208.GB25134@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:34:03AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 06:42:55PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > >> However, there is literally nothing else in the tree that calls or > >> provides those functions: > >> > >> [jwboyer@vader linux]$ git grep unregister_restart_handler > >> drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c: unregister_restart_handler(&pctrl->resta > >> [jwboyer@vader linux]$ > >> > >> > >> I'm rather confused. How was this commit built and tested? > > I guess the dependent tree was being pulled into linux-next before > the pinctrl tree, and so the end result was working? > > > Looks like the pinctrl tree did not include the merge with the immutable > > branch with the necessary infrastructure in its pull request to Linus :-(. > > Yeah maybe I missed some pull request for that, such things happen. > > > As for how it was tested in the pinctrl tree, no idea. Maybe pinctrl-msm has > > some dependency which was missing in the pinctrl tree and came in through > > a different pull request. > > See above. > > Anyway, it is a minor platform, not x86_64. So don't exaggerate > this thing, and besides the restart notifiers are great. > > If we go down the route of trying to always avoid all trouble in the > world by adding more procedure I guess we shouldn't shoehorn Not a matter of procedure, but it would have been easy to avoid. I take at least part of the blame here because I did not follow up with you to make sure that you merge the infrastructure into your tree. > too much into the same merge window and should have this > postponed to v3.19. But I don't know if it buys us so much. > That was the original idea, but the restart handler was way more successful that I thought it would or could be, so things got pulled in a bit. Anyway, I tend to agree - there are now several other build failures in Linus' tree which it inherited from linux-next. I consider those worse, especially since the majority if not all of those problems were known from -next but ignored. Wonder what the value of -next is if people don't care if it builds or not :-(. But then Linus ignored my pull request (so far), so maybe I did manage to upset him ;-). Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/