On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:11 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 1/12/21 1:07 PM, Jiaxun Yang wrote: > > 在 2021/1/12 下午6:42, Hans de Goede 写道: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 1/8/21 9:52 AM, kernel test robot wrote: > > [...] > >> > >> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate > >> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > >> > > [...] > >>> 2 errors generated. > > > > Oops, thanks for the reminder, I should exclude 0day CI from mail filter. > > It's wired that GCC didn't say anything about it. > > > >> Ugh, so that means that the current version of the > >> "ACPI: platform-profile: Pass profile pointer to driver callbacks" > >> patch is no good. Since this is causing compile errors I assume > >> that it will be dropped from the bleeding-edge branch. > >> Is that right Rafael? > > > > I'm not familiar with x86pdx and ACPI workflow. > > Should I resend the patch or send a fixup patch? > > I believe a new version of the patch is best, then Rafael can > replace the broken patch. We want to avoid having a commit in > git history which does not compile in some cases, because that > creates problems when git bisecting. That's right. If the plan is to drop the "const" everywhere, I would appreciate an additional patch to do that on top of the two from Mark and a new patch adding a new callback on top of that.
