On 08/14/2018 01:27 PM, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Daniel Díaz wrote on Tue, Aug 14, 2018: >> I can't get cpupower to compile anymore now that it made its way to >> linux-next: >> [/linux/tools/power/cpupower]$ make >> CC lib/cpufreq.o >> [...] >> make[1]: Entering directory '/linux/tools/power/cpupower/bench' >> CC main.o >> CC parse.o >> parse.c: In function ‘prepare_config’: >> parse.c:224:4: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘strlcpy’ >> [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] >> strlcpy(config->governor, val, >> ^ >> CC system.o >> CC benchmark.o >> CC cpufreq-bench >> .//parse.o: In function `prepare_config': >> /linux/tools/power/cpupower/bench/parse.c:224: undefined reference >> to `strlcpy' >> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status >> Makefile:25: recipe for target 'cpufreq-bench' failed >> make[1]: *** [cpufreq-bench] Error 1 >> make[1]: Leaving directory '/linux/tools/power/cpupower/bench' >> Makefile:258: recipe for target 'compile-bench' failed >> make: *** [compile-bench] Error 2 >> >> Does it need anything special to make? > > Ugh, no, I am really ashamed about this patch series for insufficient > testing in general. It is currently "under rework" for an indefinite > time frame as I have had other priorities but I'll add cpupower to the > list... > More precisely, the function is defined in the linux kernel but for > userspace strlcpy is only available through libbsd, and I don't believe > we should pull that in just for this. > > I'll send a second patch using snprintf and warning if a truncation > occurs (which is the proper fix that the gcc folks intended people to do > anyway) when I get around to it, but I would recommend to just revert > the patch for now. > > > Shuah, could you take the patch off please if you haven't pushed it to > linus yet? > > > Sorry for the time you might have spent on this, > I will go ahead and revert it.
thanks, -- Shuah
