On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Tomasz Figa <tf...@google.com> wrote: > Hi Gustavo, > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Gustavo Padovan <gust...@padovan.org> wrote: >> 2017-06-18 kbuild test robot <l...@intel.com>: >> >>> Hi Gustavo, >>> >>> [auto build test ERROR on linuxtv-media/master] >>> [also build test ERROR on v4.12-rc5 next-20170616] >>> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to >>> help improve the system] >>> >>> url: >>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Gustavo-Padovan/vb2-add-explicit-fence-user-API/20170618-210740 >>> base: git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git master >>> config: x86_64-allmodconfig (attached as .config) >>> compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.2.0-3) 6.2.0 20160901 >>> reproduce: >>> # save the attached .config to linux build tree >>> make ARCH=x86_64 >>> >>> All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): >>> >>> drivers/staging/media//atomisp/pci/atomisp2/atomisp_ioctl.c: In function >>> 'atomisp_qbuf': >>> >> drivers/staging/media//atomisp/pci/atomisp2/atomisp_ioctl.c:1297:10: >>> >> error: 'struct v4l2_buffer' has no member named 'reserved2'; did you >>> >> mean 'reserved'? >>> (buf->reserved2 & ATOMISP_BUFFER_HAS_PER_FRAME_SETTING)) { >>> ^~ >>> drivers/staging/media//atomisp/pci/atomisp2/atomisp_ioctl.c:1299:50: >>> error: 'struct v4l2_buffer' has no member named 'reserved2'; did you mean >>> 'reserved'? >>> pipe->frame_request_config_id[buf->index] = buf->reserved2 & >>> ^~ >>> drivers/staging/media//atomisp/pci/atomisp2/atomisp_ioctl.c: In function >>> 'atomisp_dqbuf': >>> drivers/staging/media//atomisp/pci/atomisp2/atomisp_ioctl.c:1483:5: >>> error: 'struct v4l2_buffer' has no member named 'reserved2'; did you mean >>> 'reserved'? >>> buf->reserved2 = pipe->frame_config_id[buf->index]; >>> ^~ >>> In file included from include/linux/printk.h:329:0, >>> from include/linux/kernel.h:13, >>> from include/linux/delay.h:21, >>> from >>> drivers/staging/media//atomisp/pci/atomisp2/atomisp_ioctl.c:24: >>> drivers/staging/media//atomisp/pci/atomisp2/atomisp_ioctl.c:1488:6: >>> error: 'struct v4l2_buffer' has no member named 'reserved2'; did you mean >>> 'reserved'? >>> buf->reserved2); >>> ^ >> >> Ouch! Seems the reserved2 was burned down by 2 drivers accessing it >> without any care for the uAPI. I'll change my patches to use the >> 'reserved' field instead. > > Given that a reserved field has a clear meaning of being reserved and > the driver in question is in staging. I'd rather vote for fixing the > driver.
Same here. It seems like this use of reserved2 should not have been merged in the first place, thankfully it's only in staging.
