On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:56:15PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Adding davem for the sparc issue, Martin for the s390 one. > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:46 PM Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote: > > > > The s390 gcc plugins related build error reported previously has not really > > been fixed; after feedback from the s390 maintainers, suggesting that it > > won't get fixed in 4.18, I disabled GCC_PLUGINS for s390 builds. This is > > not my preferred solution, but it beats not testing s390:allmodconfig > > builds at all. > > Martin - can we just remove the > > select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS > > from the s390 Kconfig file (or perhaps add "if BROKEN" or something to > disable it). > > Because if it's not getting fixed, it shouldn't be exposed. > The problem only affects 4.18 - the code has been rearranged in -next. Only, in my builders, I can't disable a flag for individual releases, so I just disabled it completely for s390.
> > The sparc32 build error is still: > > > > In file included from > > ... > > from drivers/staging/media/omap4iss/iss_video.c:15: > > include/linux/highmem.h: In function 'clear_user_highpage': > > include/linux/highmem.h:137:31: error: > > passing argument 1 of 'sparc_flush_page_to_ram' from incompatible > > pointer type > > > > due to a missing declaration of 'struct page', as previously reported. > > Hmm. I assume it's > > arch/sparc/include/asm/cacheflush_32.h > > that wants a forward-declaration of 'struct page', and doesn't include > any header files. > > The fix is presumably to move the > > #include <asm/cacheflush.h> > > in drivers/staging/media/omap4iss/iss_video.c down to below the > <linux/*> includes? > Good idea. > The old patchwork link you had for a fix no longer works, I think > because the patchwork database got re-generated during the upgrade > (and the patchwork numbering isn't stable). > Looks like they dropped lkml completely. Odd. My patch is also at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/937283/ Also, there is now another patch from Randy Dunlap, pretty much doing the same. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/947434/ I'll submit separate patches to address the include file ordering; it does make sense to do that. I'll do the same for android/binder.c; it has the same problem, only there it only generates a warning. Thanks, Guenter
