On 01/27/2012 01:46 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:31:13 +0400 Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On the specifics of this bug, I verified this config compiles okay in
your tree + my patches at the day I last sent them. I also verified it
breaks on the tree today.
The reason seems to be that some other patch tweaked with the header
files in an unrelated patch, and the static_branch definition that was
getting to us in sock.h, is no longer getting there.
Including it explicitly fixes it here. I will again pass through a
battery of randconfigs on my own, and send you a fix.
Which is one of the reasons we have Rule 1 in Documentation/SubmitChecklist:
1: If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
that facility. Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones
that you use.
I understand that. I wasn't saying I am not to blame, just why this
wasn't catched in any test of mine before.
The fix is on its way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
