On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, Joshua Grisham wrote:
> Den tors 6 feb. 2025 kl 11:27 skrev Ilpo Järvinen
> <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > After merging the drivers-x86 tree, today's linux-next build
> > > (x86_64_allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > >
> > > In file included from include/linux/kobject.h:20,
> > > from include/linux/energy_model.h:7,
> > > from include/linux/device.h:16,
> > > from include/linux/acpi.h:14,
> > > from drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c:14:
> > > drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c: In function 'galaxybook_fw_attr_init':
> > > drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c:1014:33: error: 'fw_attr' is a pointer; did you mean to use '->'?
> > > 1014 | sysfs_attr_init(&fw_attr.display_name);
> > > | ^
> > > include/linux/sysfs.h:55:10: note: in definition of macro 'sysfs_attr_init'
> > > 55 | (attr)->key = &__key; \
> > > | ^~~~
> > > drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c:1020:33: error: 'fw_attr' is a pointer; did you mean to use '->'?
> > > 1020 | sysfs_attr_init(&fw_attr.current_value);
> > > | ^
> > > include/linux/sysfs.h:55:10: note: in definition of macro 'sysfs_attr_init'
> > > 55 | (attr)->key = &__key; \
> > > | ^~~~
> > >
> > > Caused by commit
> > >
> > > f97634611408 ("platform/x86: samsung-galaxybook: Add samsung-galaxybook driver")
> > >
> > > I guess this was never built with CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC set.
> > >
> > > I have used the drivers-x86 tree from next-20250205 for today.
> >
> > Apparently it wasn't.
> >
> > However, I've an LKP success report for f97634611408 (prior to pushing it
> > to for-next, I always wait for LKP).
> >
> > Why LKP didn't catch it despite claiming it built with x86_64_allyesconfig
> > (successfully)?? Did LKP not build the tree??
> >
> > I've pulled the commit from for-next until the problem is resolved to not
> > keep breaking builds. Joshua, could you please take a look at it.
> >
> > --
> > i.
> >
>
> Hi Ilpo and all,
> Yes, great that there are tests in place :) Sorry this was one of the
> later changes and I can't remember now when exactly I did the full
> testing vs not as per the kernel documentation (as there were several
> iterations to the patch for this driver) but I believe I have
> identified what should be fixed and can send it shortly.
>
> Ilpo would you prefer a patch on top of the existing patch (i.e. just
> a diff of these 2 lines) or would you rather that I create a v11 of
> the original patch and send the whole thing again?
>
> Thanks again!
I've kept the change in review-ilpo-next branch. An incremental patch is
fine (it's easier to see its correctness on a glance too).
--
i.
