On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:04:48 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:04:05 +1100 > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig) > > failed like this: > > > > In file included from include/trace/ftrace.h:567:0, > > from include/trace/define_trace.h:86, > > from include/trace/events/power.h:240, > > from kernel/trace/power-traces.c:14: > > include/trace/events/kmem.h: In function 'ftrace_test_probe_kmalloc': > > include/trace/events/kmem.h:45:1: error: implicit declaration of function 'check_trace_callback_type_kmalloc' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > include/trace/events/kmem.h: In function 'ftrace_test_probe_kmem_cache_alloc': > > > > ... > > > > include/trace/events/kmem.h:267:1: error: implicit declaration of function 'check_trace_callback_type_mm_page_alloc_extfrag' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > In file included from include/trace/ftrace.h:774:0, > > from include/trace/define_trace.h:86, > > from include/trace/events/power.h:240, > > from kernel/trace/power-traces.c:14: > > include/trace/events/kmem.h: In function 'perf_test_probe_mm_page_pcpu_drain': > > include/trace/events/kmem.h:256:1: error: implicit declaration of function 'check_trace_callback_type_mm_page_pcpu_drain' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > > I have no idea what has gone wrong here, but I did not get this error > > yesterday. The only thing that touched include/trace/events/kmem.h is > > patch "mm-tracepoint: rename page-free events" from the akpm tree, but > > that was there yesterday as well and doesn't look suspicious. > > Yes, it's not due to anything in the akpm tree. Tracing stuff blew up. > > > I just have to leave things broken for today in the hope that someone > > figures something out. This does not affect my X86_64 allmodconfig build > > or my PowerPC builds (including an allyesconfig build). > > It fails with sparc64 defconfig but succeeds with sparc64 allmodconfig. > Some config-dependent thing. 3.2 is OK, so it's something in -next. > > It could be that some far-off sparc64 Kconfig change is newly > triggering this. > > I suppose I could get off my ass and actually work out why it broke, > but the tracing code is too icky. This failure is now in Linus' tree. I am not sure when it got there. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpztydP66tAG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
