Re: Build errors in 3.4 stable patch queue

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:17:22 -0700

> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:07:40PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:42:46AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:39:41AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:28:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> > > > Hi Greg,
>> > > > 
>> > > > your current (as of last night) stable patch queue for 3.4 generates
>> > > > build errors for all but x86 platforms (at least all I tested).
>> > > > 
>> > > > include/linux/etherdevice.h: In function 'ether_addr_equal_64bits':
>> > > > include/linux/etherdevice.h:308:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'ether_addr_equal' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>> > > > 
>> > > > Looks like this may be due to the folloing patch:
>> > > > bonding-rlb-mode-of-bond-should-not-alter-arp-originating-via-bridge.patch
>> > > > 
>> > > > [ Sorry if this is just noise for you. If so, please let me know. ]
>> > > 
>> > > No, not noise at all for me.  I just built this and I don't see this
>> > > issue at all, can you send me the .config you used?  I'm using an almost
>> > > 'make allmodconfig', but tweaked in some ways to get it to actually boot
>> > > on my boxes.
>> > > 
>> > defconfig fails for arm, blackfin, m68k, mips, parisc, sparc, and xtensa.
>> > x86 (both i386 and x86_64) build passes for all builds, and powerpc
>> > defconfig passes (some builds fail for other reasons, but that is old).
>> > 
>> > Let me know if any of those builds passes for you; if so, maybe something
>> > is wrong in my build setup.
>> 
>> I only test-build x86-64 here, and that's obviously passing.  Perhaps we
>> just need another .h file in etherdevice.h to pull in the proper
>> declaration?
>> 
> ether_addr_equal was introduced with commit a599b0f54 (etherdevice.h: Add
> ether_addr_equal). I guess it does not exist in 3.4. Can you patch it in
> or would that violate stable rules ?

Can you at least look at the guilty bonding patch in question?  It
adds ether_addr_equal() to linux/etherdevice.h, specifically to deal
with this issue.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]