On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:44:53 +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > > > On 10/13/20 8:31 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > This patch failed to compile in my env: > > > > > > FAILED: tools/virsh.p/virsh-domain.c.o > > [....] > > -D_FUNCTION_DEF -MD -MQ tools/virsh.p/virsh-domain.c.o -MF > > tools/virsh.p/virsh-domain.c.o.d -o tools/virsh.p/virsh-domain.c.o -c > > ../tools/virsh-domain.c > > In file included from /usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include/glibconfig.h:9, > > from /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gtypes.h:32, > > from /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/galloca.h:32, > > from /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib.h:30, > > from ../src/util/glibcompat.h:21, > > from ../src/internal.h:30, > > from ../tools/virsh.h:25, > > from ../tools/virsh-domain.h:23, > > from ../tools/virsh-domain.c:22: > > /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:745:53: error: size of array > > ‘_GStaticAssertCompileTimeAssertion_185’ is negative > > 745 | #define G_STATIC_ASSERT(expr) typedef char G_PASTE > > (_GStaticAssertCompileTimeAssertion_, __COUNTER__)[(expr) ? 1 : -1] > > G_GNUC_UNUSED > > | > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:735:47: note: in definition of > > macro ‘G_PASTE_ARGS’ > > 735 | #define G_PASTE_ARGS(identifier1,identifier2) identifier1 ## > > identifier2 > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~ > > /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:745:44: note: in expansion of macro > > ‘G_PASTE’ > > 745 | #define G_STATIC_ASSERT(expr) typedef char G_PASTE > > (_GStaticAssertCompileTimeAssertion_, __COUNTER__)[(expr) ? 1 : -1] > > G_GNUC_UNUSED > > | ^~~~~~~ > > ../tools/virsh-domain.c:13643:1: note: in expansion of macro > > ‘G_STATIC_ASSERT’ > > 13643 | G_STATIC_ASSERT(VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_ID_LAST == > > G_N_ELEMENTS(virshDomainEventCallbacks)); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > [505/984] Compiling C object > > src/virtqemud.p/remote_remote_daemon_dispatch.c.o > > ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed. > > $ > > > > > > I didn't verify if the following patches fixes it. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > DHB > > > > I described it in '[PATCH v2 4/4] virsh: implement memory failure event' > > Notice: > The full patch set includes 4 patches: > virsh: implement memory failure event (current patch) > qemu: monitor: handle memory failure event > qemu: process: implement domainMemoryFailure > API: introduce memory failure > > To avoid build/test errors, the 4 patches should be merged/removed > together. No, they just need to be moved into appropriate order so that they can be built. There's no point splitting them just to merge them later. > Suggested by Peter, separate a 'all in one' patch into 4 patches (described > in cover letter '[PATCH v2 0/4] support memory failure'). > I forked a repo and pushed the 4 > patches(https://gitlab.com/pacepi/libvirt/-/tree/memory-failure-v2), CI > worked fine. Our contribution guidelines required that the tree builds successfully after every single patch: https://libvirt.org/hacking.html Section "Preparing patches": "If you're going to submit multiple patches, the automated tests must pass *after each patch*, not just after the last one."
