From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760521Ab0KRVJB (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:09:01 -0500 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:53019 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759474Ab0KRVI7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:08:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:09:00 -0200 From: "Gustavo F. Padovan" To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Randy Dunlap , "John W. Linville" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (wireless tree related) Message-ID: <20101118210900.GB3874@vigoh> References: <20101117134820.bca8d764.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4CE3FCB5.6030909@oracle.com> <20101118132724.f7d21899.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101118132724.f7d21899.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Stephen Rothwell [2010-11-18 13:27:24 +1100]: > Hi all, > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:03:01 -0800 Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > On 11/16/10 18:48, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig) > > > failed like this: > > > > > > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl3945.o: In function `iwl_legacy_mac_reset_tsf': > > > (.opd+0xf00): multiple definition of `iwl_legacy_mac_reset_tsf' > > > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwlagn.o:(.opd+0x90): first defined here > . > . > > > I should have known when I reported the warning ... > > > > > > Caused by commit dd0dd411f7178a20ea93a3cfa39123f078a07e25 ("iwlwifi: fix > > > modular legacy build errors"). > > > > > > I have reverted that commit for today. > > > > Ack. John, please drop/revert that patch. > > > > Sorry about the problem. > > Looks like John removed it but the bluetooth tree (which is based on top > of the wireless tree) brought it back in by rebasing on top of yesterday's > wireless tree. :-( > > I have reverted it again today. Sorry about that, I wasn't aware of this problem. I'm going to redo my tree today to fix this issue. -- Gustavo F. Padovan http://profusion.mobi