Re: [PATCH v2] arch,locking: Ciao arch_mutex_cpu_relax()

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 06:18:34PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 10:42 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 15:04 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > It looks like you forgot to update frv?  It's been failing on -next since a
> > > few days:
> 
> Anyway developers can be alerted sooner about this (ie: while its still
> in -next phase), like automated emails or something? This would be extra
> nice for those archs that are harder to get tested.
> 
> > > kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h:87:2: error: implicit declaration of
> > > function 'cpu_relax_lowlatency'
> > > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > > kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h:87:2: error: implicit declaration of
> > > function 'cpu_relax_lowlatency'
> > > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > make[3]: *** [kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.o] Error 1
> > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > > make[3]: *** [kernel/locking/mutex.o] Error 1
> > > 
> > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/11616307/
> > 
> > Ah, indeed. Thanks for the report, afaict this was the only missing
> > arch .
> 
> Adding Guenter who also reported this yesterday.
> 
> Linus, since this is build-breaking an entire arch, it might be worth
> avoiding the whole -tip thing and get the fix in as soon as possible.
> 

Hi Davidlohr,

The fix is still not upstream, unfortunately. Maybe the patch got lost because
it was not sent as separate patch, or maybe it has to go through the frv
maintainer, or some Cc: was missing. Would be great if you could follow up
on this.

Thanks,
Guenter