On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20111216:
(not new today, just not reported earlier)
net/nfc/netlink.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
netlink.c:(.text+0xaa6): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
net/nfc/core.o:core.c:(.text+0x97): first defined here
net/nfc/netlink.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
netlink.c:(.text+0xab1): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
net/nfc/core.o:core.c:(.text+0xa2): first defined here
net/nfc/af_nfc.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
af_nfc.c:(.text+0x79): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
net/nfc/core.o:core.c:(.text+0x97): first defined here
net/nfc/af_nfc.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
af_nfc.c:(.text+0x84): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
net/nfc/core.o:core.c:(.text+0xa2): first defined here
net/nfc/rawsock.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
rawsock.c:(.text+0x81e): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
net/nfc/core.o:core.c:(.text+0x97): first defined here
net/nfc/rawsock.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
rawsock.c:(.text+0x829): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
net/nfc/core.o:core.c:(.text+0xa2): first defined here
net/nfc/nci/data.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
data.c:(.text+0x2b0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
net/nfc/nci/core.o:core.c:(.text+0xa3c): first defined here
net/nfc/nci/data.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
data.c:(.text+0x2bb): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
net/nfc/nci/core.o:core.c:(.text+0xa47): first defined here
net/nfc/nci/ntf.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
ntf.c:(.text+0x3bf): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
net/nfc/nci/core.o:core.c:(.text+0xa3c): first defined here
net/nfc/nci/ntf.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
ntf.c:(.text+0x3ca): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
net/nfc/nci/core.o:core.c:(.text+0xa47): first defined here
net/nfc/nci/rsp.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
rsp.c:(.text+0x35b): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
net/nfc/nci/core.o:core.c:(.text+0xa3c): first defined here
net/nfc/nci/rsp.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
rsp.c:(.text+0x366): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
net/nfc/nci/core.o:core.c:(.text+0xa47): first defined here
Full randconfig file is attached.
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
On 12/20/2011 08:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Changes since 20111216:
>>
>>
>> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
> John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
Hi Samuel,
Is this supposed to be fixed in linux-next?
It still fails today (linux-next 20111221).
data.c:(.text+0x3e0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
data.c:(.text+0x400): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
ntf.c:(.text+0xb60): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
ntf.c:(.text+0xb80): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
rsp.c:(.text+0x750): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
rsp.c:(.text+0x770): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
netlink.c:(.text+0x14e0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
netlink.c:(.text+0x1500): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
af_nfc.c:(.text+0xe0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
af_nfc.c:(.text+0x100): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
rawsock.c:(.text+0x1000): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
rawsock.c:(.text+0x1020): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
Hi Randy,
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 11:57 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 08:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > Hi Randy,
> >
> > On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Changes since 20111216:
> >>
> >>
> >> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
> > John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
>
> Hi Samuel,
>
> Is this supposed to be fixed in linux-next?
> It still fails today (linux-next 20111221).
Do you have a .config for me to look at ?
Cheers,
Samuel.
Hi Randy,
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since 20111216:
>
>
> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
Cheers,
Samuel.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:57:19AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 08:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > Hi Randy,
> >
> > On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Changes since 20111216:
> >>
> >>
> >> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
> > John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
>
> Hi Samuel,
>
> Is this supposed to be fixed in linux-next?
> It still fails today (linux-next 20111221).
>
>
> data.c:(.text+0x3e0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
> data.c:(.text+0x400): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
> ntf.c:(.text+0xb60): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
> ntf.c:(.text+0xb80): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
> rsp.c:(.text+0x750): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
> rsp.c:(.text+0x770): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
> netlink.c:(.text+0x14e0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
> netlink.c:(.text+0x1500): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
> af_nfc.c:(.text+0xe0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
> af_nfc.c:(.text+0x100): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
> rawsock.c:(.text+0x1000): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
> rawsock.c:(.text+0x1020): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
I have this commit in wireless-next, been there a couple of days:
commit 645d35902c8f05a1b12fa838aa9052d8eeaf161e
Author: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
Date: Fri Dec 16 15:03:36 2011 +0100
NFC: Fix LLCP related build failure
llcp_mac routines should be static and inlined or build will fail with NFC
selected without LLCP.
This patch fixes:
LD [M] net/nfc/nfc.o
net/nfc/netlink.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
netlink.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x0): first defined here
net/nfc/netlink.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
netlink.c:(.text+0x10): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x10): first defined here
net/nfc/af_nfc.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x0): first defined here
net/nfc/af_nfc.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
(.text+0x10): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x10): first defined here
net/nfc/rawsock.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
rawsock.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x0): first defined here
net/nfc/rawsock.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
rawsock.c:(.text+0x10): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x10): first defined here
Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <[email protected]>
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
On 12/20/2011 08:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Changes since 20111216:
>>
>>
>> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
> John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
Thanks for the info.
The build still fails in linux-next 20111220 (today).
Maybe it's fixed for tomorrow...
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 13:58 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 12/21/2011 12:42 PM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > Hi Randy,
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 11:57 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 12/20/2011 08:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> >>> Hi Randy,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>>> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Changes since 20111216:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
> >>> John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
> >>
> >> Hi Samuel,
> >>
> >> Is this supposed to be fixed in linux-next?
> >> It still fails today (linux-next 20111221).
> > Do you have a .config for me to look at ?
>
> Sure, one of several that failed is attached.
Thanks, I just tried this one and it seems to work fine. What's your
toolchain ?
I'm using: gcc version 4.6.2 (Debian 4.6.2-4)
Cheers,
Samuel.
On 12/21/2011 12:42 PM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 11:57 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 12/20/2011 08:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
>>> Hi Randy,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since 20111216:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
>>> John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
>>
>> Hi Samuel,
>>
>> Is this supposed to be fixed in linux-next?
>> It still fails today (linux-next 20111221).
> Do you have a .config for me to look at ?
Sure, one of several that failed is attached.
Thanks.
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
On 12/21/2011 11:02 AM, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:57:19AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 12/20/2011 08:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
>>> Hi Randy,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since 20111216:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
>>> John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
>>
>> Hi Samuel,
>>
>> Is this supposed to be fixed in linux-next?
>> It still fails today (linux-next 20111221).
>>
>>
>> data.c:(.text+0x3e0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
>> data.c:(.text+0x400): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
>> ntf.c:(.text+0xb60): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
>> ntf.c:(.text+0xb80): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
>> rsp.c:(.text+0x750): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
>> rsp.c:(.text+0x770): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
>> netlink.c:(.text+0x14e0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
>> netlink.c:(.text+0x1500): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
>> af_nfc.c:(.text+0xe0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
>> af_nfc.c:(.text+0x100): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
>> rawsock.c:(.text+0x1000): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
>> rawsock.c:(.text+0x1020): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
>
> I have this commit in wireless-next, been there a couple of days:
Apparently this patch is not sufficient. There is still a build problem.
> commit 645d35902c8f05a1b12fa838aa9052d8eeaf161e
> Author: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri Dec 16 15:03:36 2011 +0100
>
> NFC: Fix LLCP related build failure
>
> llcp_mac routines should be static and inlined or build will fail with NFC
> selected without LLCP.
>
> This patch fixes:
>
> LD [M] net/nfc/nfc.o
> net/nfc/netlink.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
> netlink.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
> net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x0): first defined here
> net/nfc/netlink.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
> netlink.c:(.text+0x10): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
> net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x10): first defined here
> net/nfc/af_nfc.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
> (.text+0x0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
> net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x0): first defined here
> net/nfc/af_nfc.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
> (.text+0x10): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
> net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x10): first defined here
> net/nfc/rawsock.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down':
> rawsock.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_down'
> net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x0): first defined here
> net/nfc/rawsock.o: In function `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up':
> rawsock.c:(.text+0x10): multiple definition of `nfc_llcp_mac_is_up'
> net/nfc/core.o:(.text+0x10): first defined here
>
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <[email protected]>
>
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
On 12/21/2011 03:35 PM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 13:58 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 12/21/2011 12:42 PM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
>>> Hi Randy,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 11:57 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2011 08:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
>>>>> Hi Randy,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since 20111216:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
>>>>> John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Samuel,
>>>>
>>>> Is this supposed to be fixed in linux-next?
>>>> It still fails today (linux-next 20111221).
>>> Do you have a .config for me to look at ?
>>
>> Sure, one of several that failed is attached.
> Thanks, I just tried this one and it seems to work fine. What's your
> toolchain ?
> I'm using: gcc version 4.6.2 (Debian 4.6.2-4)
I'm using:
> gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.5.2
so maybe it is something that has been fixed in gcc...
Thanks for checking the config.
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
Hi all,
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:52:42 -0800 Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 12/21/2011 03:35 PM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 13:58 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 12/21/2011 12:42 PM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> >>> Hi Randy,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 11:57 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>>> On 12/20/2011 08:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Randy,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:44 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/18/2011 11:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Changes since 20111216:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (not new today, just not reported earlier)
> >>>>> John applied my fix for this one. It should be fixed now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Samuel,
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this supposed to be fixed in linux-next?
> >>>> It still fails today (linux-next 20111221).
> >>> Do you have a .config for me to look at ?
> >>
> >> Sure, one of several that failed is attached.
> > Thanks, I just tried this one and it seems to work fine. What's your
> > toolchain ?
> > I'm using: gcc version 4.6.2 (Debian 4.6.2-4)
>
> I'm using:
> > gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 4.5.2
>
> so maybe it is something that has been fixed in gcc...
>
> Thanks for checking the config.
Well, it would be interesting to know what tree Samuel was testing,
because the fix commit was *not* in next-20111221 due to another error in
the wireless-next tree ...
That fix *should* be in today's linux-next since the fix for the other
build problem is there.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/