On 03/15/2012 12:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> News: the build system (see below) has had its toolchains for most
> architectures updated to gcc 4.6.3. People might like to check the build
> results and consider if this change has caused any problems. There are
> also a number of architectures that are building today for the first
> time. Thanks to Tony Breeds for his efforts in providing toolchains.
>
> Changes since 20120314:
on x86_64:
arch/x86/crypto/twofish-x86_64-3way.o: In function `fini':
(.exit.text+0x0): multiple definition of `fini'
arch/x86/crypto/camellia-x86_64.o:(.exit.text+0x0): first defined here
arch/x86/crypto/twofish-x86_64-3way.o: In function `init':
(.init.text+0x0): multiple definition of `init'
arch/x86/crypto/camellia-x86_64.o:(.init.text+0x0): first defined here
Full randconfig file is attached.
--
~Randy
Quoting Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>:
> On 03/15/2012 12:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> News: the build system (see below) has had its toolchains for most
>> architectures updated to gcc 4.6.3. People might like to check the build
>> results and consider if this change has caused any problems. There are
>> also a number of architectures that are building today for the first
>> time. Thanks to Tony Breeds for his efforts in providing toolchains.
>>
>> Changes since 20120314:
>
>
> on x86_64:
>
> arch/x86/crypto/twofish-x86_64-3way.o: In function `fini':
> (.exit.text+0x0): multiple definition of `fini'
> arch/x86/crypto/camellia-x86_64.o:(.exit.text+0x0): first defined here
> arch/x86/crypto/twofish-x86_64-3way.o: In function `init':
> (.init.text+0x0): multiple definition of `init'
> arch/x86/crypto/camellia-x86_64.o:(.init.text+0x0): first defined here
>
Ah.. init()/fini() should be static functions but are not. I'll send
patches soon. Thanks.
>
> Full randconfig file is attached.
>
>
> --
> ~Randy
>
This caused conflict with twofish-x86_64-3way when compiled into kernel,
same function names and not static.
Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c b/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c
index 1ca36a9..3306dc0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c
+++ b/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c
@@ -1925,7 +1925,7 @@ static int force;
module_param(force, int, 0);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(force, "Force module load, ignore CPU blacklist");
-int __init init(void)
+static int __init init(void)
{
if (!force && is_blacklisted_cpu()) {
printk(KERN_INFO
@@ -1938,7 +1938,7 @@ int __init init(void)
return crypto_register_algs(camellia_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(camellia_algs));
}
-void __exit fini(void)
+static void __exit fini(void)
{
crypto_unregister_algs(camellia_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(camellia_algs));
}
This caused conflict with camellia-x86_64 when compiled into kernel, same
function names and not static.
Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c b/arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c
index 408fc0c..922ab24 100644
--- a/arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c
+++ b/arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c
@@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ static int force;
module_param(force, int, 0);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(force, "Force module load, ignore CPU blacklist");
-int __init init(void)
+static int __init init(void)
{
if (!force && is_blacklisted_cpu()) {
printk(KERN_INFO
@@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ int __init init(void)
return crypto_register_algs(tf_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(tf_algs));
}
-void __exit fini(void)
+static void __exit fini(void)
{
crypto_unregister_algs(tf_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(tf_algs));
}
On 03/15/2012 01:11 PM, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
> This caused conflict with twofish-x86_64-3way when compiled into kernel,
> same function names and not static.
>
> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Thanks.
> ---
> arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c b/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c
> index 1ca36a9..3306dc0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c
> @@ -1925,7 +1925,7 @@ static int force;
> module_param(force, int, 0);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(force, "Force module load, ignore CPU blacklist");
>
> -int __init init(void)
> +static int __init init(void)
> {
> if (!force && is_blacklisted_cpu()) {
> printk(KERN_INFO
> @@ -1938,7 +1938,7 @@ int __init init(void)
> return crypto_register_algs(camellia_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(camellia_algs));
> }
>
> -void __exit fini(void)
> +static void __exit fini(void)
> {
> crypto_unregister_algs(camellia_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(camellia_algs));
> }
>
--
~Randy
On 03/15/2012 01:11 PM, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
> This caused conflict with camellia-x86_64 when compiled into kernel, same
> function names and not static.
>
> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Thanks.
> ---
> arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c b/arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c
> index 408fc0c..922ab24 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/twofish_glue_3way.c
> @@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ static int force;
> module_param(force, int, 0);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(force, "Force module load, ignore CPU blacklist");
>
> -int __init init(void)
> +static int __init init(void)
> {
> if (!force && is_blacklisted_cpu()) {
> printk(KERN_INFO
> @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ int __init init(void)
> return crypto_register_algs(tf_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(tf_algs));
> }
>
> -void __exit fini(void)
> +static void __exit fini(void)
> {
> crypto_unregister_algs(tf_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(tf_algs));
> }
>
--
~Randy
On 03/15/2012 01:11 PM, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
> This caused conflict with twofish-x86_64-3way when compiled into kernel,
> same function names and not static.
Have these patches been merged anywhere?
I'm still seeing build problems in linux-next 20120321.
> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c b/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c
> index 1ca36a9..3306dc0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c
> @@ -1925,7 +1925,7 @@ static int force;
> module_param(force, int, 0);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(force, "Force module load, ignore CPU blacklist");
>
> -int __init init(void)
> +static int __init init(void)
> {
> if (!force && is_blacklisted_cpu()) {
> printk(KERN_INFO
> @@ -1938,7 +1938,7 @@ int __init init(void)
> return crypto_register_algs(camellia_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(camellia_algs));
> }
>
> -void __exit fini(void)
> +static void __exit fini(void)
> {
> crypto_unregister_algs(camellia_algs, ARRAY_SIZE(camellia_algs));
> }
>
>
--
~Randy
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 05:40:03PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 01:11 PM, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
>
> > This caused conflict with twofish-x86_64-3way when compiled into kernel,
> > same function names and not static.
>
> Have these patches been merged anywhere?
> I'm still seeing build problems in linux-next 20120321.
Thanks for the reminder, I'll push these through today.
--
Email: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
On 03/21/2012 05:46 PM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 05:40:03PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/15/2012 01:11 PM, Jussi Kivilinna wrote:
>>
>>> This caused conflict with twofish-x86_64-3way when compiled into kernel,
>>> same function names and not static.
>>
>> Have these patches been merged anywhere?
>> I'm still seeing build problems in linux-next 20120321.
>
> Thanks for the reminder, I'll push these through today.
Please push these to Linus ASAP, it is breaking the x86-64 allyesconfig
build upstream right now.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:18:01PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reminder, I'll push these through today.
>
> Please push these to Linus ASAP, it is breaking the x86-64 allyesconfig
> build upstream right now.
I've pushed them through.
Thanks,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt