On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25:26PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > 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. > Actually, I did. Maybe I am missing something, but the patch in Greg's stable queue for 3.4, named bonding-rlb-mode-of-bond-should-not-alter-arp-originating-via-bridge.patch only adds ether_addr_equal_64bits(), not ether_addr_equal(). ether_addr_equal_64bits() in turn depends on ether_addr_equal() if CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is not defined. 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