On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 03:46:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build
> (s390-defconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c:1596:20: error: initialization of 'ssize_t (*)(const struct bus_type *, char *)' {aka 'long int (*)(const struct bus_type *, char *)'} from incompatible pointer type 'ssize_t (*)(struct bus_type *, char *)' {aka 'long int (*)(struct bus_type *, char *)'} [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
>
> (reported here: http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/14902509/)
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 75cff725d956 ("driver core: bus: mark the struct bus_type for sysfs callbacks as constant")
>
> interacting with commit
>
> d7b1813af6a5 ("s390/ap: introduce new AP bus sysfs attribute features")
>
> from the s390 tree.
>
> I will apply the following (currently untested) merge fix up patch from
> tomorrow:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:42:41 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "driver core: bus: mark the struct bus_type for sysfs callbacks as constant"
>
> interacting with "s390/ap: introduce new AP bus sysfs attribute features"
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
> index 85bb0de15e76..8d6b9a52bf3c 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
> @@ -1570,7 +1570,7 @@ static ssize_t bindings_show(const struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
>
> static BUS_ATTR_RO(bindings);
>
> -static ssize_t features_show(struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
> +static ssize_t features_show(const struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
Patch is correct, thank you.
s390 developers, if you have a persistent tag/branch, I can suck this
into the driver core tree and apply this fixup there so that you don't
have to deal with any merge issues for 6.4-rc1 if you want. Or I can
provide one for you if you need/want that instead. Or we can just leave
it alone and deal with it during the 6.4-rc1 merge window, your choice.
thanks,
greg k-h
