Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752132AbbFYJw1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:52:27 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175]:35680 "EHLO mail-ig0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751207AbbFYJwS (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:52:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150625165447.140502c9@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20150625165447.140502c9@canb.auug.org.au> From: Dan Streetman Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:51:58 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Jrhbn_zif9YMmtN8pnF4HlVrHXg Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the modules tree To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Rusty Russell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2891 Lines: 85 On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Rusty, > > After merging the modules tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > allnoconfig) failed like this: I promise I'll build with all[no|mod|yes]config next time! ;-) Thanks for catching this one too. > > kernel/params.c:628:6: error: redefinition of 'kernel_param_lock' > void kernel_param_lock(struct module *mod) > ^ > In file included from include/linux/module.h:18:0, > from kernel/params.c:21: > include/linux/moduleparam.h:246:20: note: previous definition of 'kernel_param_lock' was here > static inline void kernel_param_lock(struct module *mod) > ^ > kernel/params.c:633:6: error: redefinition of 'kernel_param_unlock' > void kernel_param_unlock(struct module *mod) > ^ > In file included from include/linux/module.h:18:0, > from kernel/params.c:21: > include/linux/moduleparam.h:249:20: note: previous definition of 'kernel_param_unlock' was here > static inline void kernel_param_unlock(struct module *mod) > ^ > > Caused by commit b51d23e4e9fe ("module: add per-module param_lock"). > This had not been tested with CONFIG_SYSFS not set. > > I have added the following patch for today (which may not be complete, > but builds). this is one way to handle it, but it will cause all modules to use the built-in param_lock, which (I don't think) is needed if there's no sysfs; another way would be to elide the param_lock entirely if !CONFIG_SYSFS. I'll send a patch for that. Rusty, is param locking needed if there is no sysfs? > > From: Stephen Rothwell > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:38:51 +1000 > Subject: [PATCH] modules: clean up add per-module param_lock > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > --- > include/linux/moduleparam.h | 9 --------- > 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h > index c12f2147c350..428d7c25c383 100644 > --- a/include/linux/moduleparam.h > +++ b/include/linux/moduleparam.h > @@ -239,17 +239,8 @@ __check_old_set_param(int (*oldset)(const char *, struct kernel_param *)) > return 0; > } > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SYSFS > extern void kernel_param_lock(struct module *mod); > extern void kernel_param_unlock(struct module *mod); > -#else > -static inline void kernel_param_lock(struct module *mod) > -{ > -} > -static inline void kernel_param_unlock(struct module *mod) > -{ > -} > -#endif > > #ifndef MODULE > /** > -- > 2.1.4 > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au -- 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/