On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:20:44PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:17:22PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > 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 ? > > No, no violation at all. But why isn't this failing on x86 or ppc > builds if the function isn't present for anyone? > It is only needed if CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is not set. Guenter -- 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