Hi Greg, On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:42:59 -0800 Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:20:16PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:59:50 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:04:48 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:04:05 +1100 > > > > Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > > > > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig) > > > > > failed like this: > > > > > > > > > > In file included from include/trace/ftrace.h:567:0, > > > > > from include/trace/define_trace.h:86, > > > > > from include/trace/events/power.h:240, > > > > > from kernel/trace/power-traces.c:14: > > > > > include/trace/events/kmem.h: In function 'ftrace_test_probe_kmalloc': > > > > > include/trace/events/kmem.h:45:1: error: implicit declaration of function 'check_trace_callback_type_kmalloc' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > > > include/trace/events/kmem.h: In function 'ftrace_test_probe_kmem_cache_alloc': > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > include/trace/events/kmem.h:267:1: error: implicit declaration of function 'check_trace_callback_type_mm_page_alloc_extfrag' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > > > In file included from include/trace/ftrace.h:774:0, > > > > > from include/trace/define_trace.h:86, > > > > > from include/trace/events/power.h:240, > > > > > from kernel/trace/power-traces.c:14: > > > > > include/trace/events/kmem.h: In function 'perf_test_probe_mm_page_pcpu_drain': > > > > > include/trace/events/kmem.h:256:1: error: implicit declaration of function 'check_trace_callback_type_mm_page_pcpu_drain' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what has gone wrong here, but I did not get this error > > > > > yesterday. The only thing that touched include/trace/events/kmem.h is > > > > > patch "mm-tracepoint: rename page-free events" from the akpm tree, but > > > > > that was there yesterday as well and doesn't look suspicious. > > > > > > > > Yes, it's not due to anything in the akpm tree. Tracing stuff blew up. > > > > > > > > > I just have to leave things broken for today in the hope that someone > > > > > figures something out. This does not affect my X86_64 allmodconfig build > > > > > or my PowerPC builds (including an allyesconfig build). > > > > > > > > It fails with sparc64 defconfig but succeeds with sparc64 allmodconfig. > > > > Some config-dependent thing. 3.2 is OK, so it's something in -next. > > > > > > > > It could be that some far-off sparc64 Kconfig change is newly > > > > triggering this. > > > > > > > > I suppose I could get off my ass and actually work out why it broke, > > > > but the tracing code is too icky. > > > > > > This failure is now in Linus' tree. I am not sure when it got there. > > > > Bisected down to: > > > > 8a25a2fd126c621f44f3aeaef80d51f00fc11639 is the first bad commit > > commit 8a25a2fd126c621f44f3aeaef80d51f00fc11639 > > Author: Kay Sievers > > Date: Wed Dec 21 14:29:42 2011 -0800 > > > > cpu: convert 'cpu' and 'machinecheck' sysdev_class to a regular subsystem > > How is this triggering this build problem? I didn't see this happen > before, and it wasn't showing up in linux-next in the past, right? I think this error showed up the first time that the sysdev removal stuff was included in linux-next i.e. after the other errors/warnings had been dealt with. > This patch has nothing to to with tracing, perhaps it is an #include > file problem? Or is the build error a different one (remember the > -Werror problem in linux-next that I fixed up for PPC?) > > confused, The tracing code is obscure and I suspect that there may be some ordering issue in there. What seems to have triggered this is the include of device.h instead of sysdev.h in cpu.h. This has caused a whole lot more tracepoints(?) to be defined. So it is a side effect and needs the tracing guys to track it down :-( -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/