On 05/14, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: >On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 07:47:20PM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote: >> On 05/14, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: >> >On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 03:40:53PM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote: >> >> >> config: x86_64-randconfig-x006-201817 (attached as .config) >> >> >> compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.3.0-16) 7.3.0 >> >> >> reproduce: >> >> >> # save the attached .config to linux build tree >> >> >> make ARCH=x86_64 >> >> >> >> >> >> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): >> >> >> >> >> >> net//sctp/sm_make_chunk.c: In function 'sctp_make_op_error_limited': >> >> >> >> net//sctp/sm_make_chunk.c:1260:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'sctp_mtu_payload'; did you mean 'sctp_do_peeloff'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> >> >> size = sctp_mtu_payload(sp, size, sizeof(struct sctp_errhdr)); >> >> >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> sctp_do_peeloff >> >> >> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors >> >> > >> >> >Seems the test didn't pick up the MTU refactor patchset yet. >> >> >> >> Do you mean your patchset require MTU refactor patchset as prerequisites? >> > >> >Yes. >> >> Then it is recommended to use '--base' option of git format-patch, it would record >> the base tree info in the first patch or cover letter, 0day bot would apply your >> patchset to right base according to it. > >Nice. I wasn't aware of it. Thanks. > >Considering that the MTU refactor patchset was already applied on >net-next when the bot did the test, why should I have to specify the >base? Could you share me the subjects or commits of MTU refactor patcheset, I'll double check what was wrong. Thanks, Xiaolong > > Marcelo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
