On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 06:34:14 +0300 Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tz.stoyanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 4:26 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:17:18 +0300 > > "Tzvetomir Stoyanov (VMware)" <tz.stoyanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Added a new optional parameter to "trace-cmd record", can be used to > > > select the desired file version of the trace output file. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tzvetomir Stoyanov (VMware) <tz.stoyanov@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Even with this last patch, I still get: > > > > trace-input.c: In function ‘tracecmd_get_file_version’: > > trace-input.c:4033:15: error: ‘struct tracecmd_input’ has no member named ‘file_version’ > > 4033 | return handle->file_version; > > | ^~ > > trace-input.c:4034:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type] > > 4034 | } > > > > So you must have added a change without somehow committing it :-/ > > The confusion is from another dependency - the "[PATCH 0/6] Bump trace > file version" patchset depends on "[PATCH v2] trace-cmd: Check if file > version is supported". I wrote that in the cover letter, but maybe Ah, I didn't read the cover letter, and just pulled the patches directly from patchwork. I missed the v2 in patch work as well. My fault, I should have read the cover letter, but knowing what it was from conversations I didn't look at it. And because I didn't see the patch that it depended on in patchwork (it was hidden between Yordan's and my patch) I didn't think it would have any dependencies, which is where I was confused. > that patch should be part of the set as well. I'll send the v2 of the > "Bump trace file version" with this additional patch. Strange, I do > not see that patchset in patchwork, only in the mailing list. > Yeah, I marked the series as "change requested" which hides it from the normal view. -- Steve
|