On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:04:48 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:04:05 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/