On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>
> "is_reserved_word()" sounds like a boolean function
> that returns 1 or 0.
> Maybe, the choice of the function name was not nice.
Yeah, not great name. That's the old name, though - I didn't change
that
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>
> "is_reserved_word()" sounds like a boolean function
> that returns 1 or 0.
> Maybe, the choice of the function name was not nice.
Yeah, not great name. That's the old name, though - I didn't change
that part, I just changed how it used
Hi Sam,
2017-09-09 15:39 GMT+09:00 Sam Ravnborg :
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 02:38:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Strange. Does anybody see what the pattern to the failure
Hi Sam,
2017-09-09 15:39 GMT+09:00 Sam Ravnborg :
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 02:38:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Strange. Does anybody see what the pattern to the failure is?
>>
>> Found it. Stupid special case for
Hi Linus,
2017-09-09 6:38 GMT+09:00 Linus Torvalds :
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> Strange. Does anybody see what the pattern to the failure is?
>
> Found it. Stupid special case for 'typeof()' that
Hi Linus,
2017-09-09 6:38 GMT+09:00 Linus Torvalds :
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> Strange. Does anybody see what the pattern to the failure is?
>
> Found it. Stupid special case for 'typeof()' that used
> is_reserved_word() in ways I hadn't realized.
>
> Fix
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 02:38:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > Strange. Does anybody see what the pattern to the failure is?
>
> Found it. Stupid special case for 'typeof()' that used
>
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 02:38:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > Strange. Does anybody see what the pattern to the failure is?
>
> Found it. Stupid special case for 'typeof()' that used
> is_reserved_word() in ways I hadn't
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Strange. Does anybody see what the pattern to the failure is?
Found it. Stupid special case for 'typeof()' that used
is_reserved_word() in ways I hadn't realized.
Fix committed.
Linus
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Strange. Does anybody see what the pattern to the failure is?
Found it. Stupid special case for 'typeof()' that used
is_reserved_word() in ways I hadn't realized.
Fix committed.
Linus
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> It doesn't seem to happen for every exported symbol, though. Odd.
Fascinating.
Picking one file at random that shows this, I did net/ceph/mon_client.c.
The version file that gets generated for that looks
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> It doesn't seem to happen for every exported symbol, though. Odd.
Fascinating.
Picking one file at random that shows this, I did net/ceph/mon_client.c.
The version file that gets generated for that looks like this:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Of course, I only did a "make allmodconfig" to test the MODVERSIONS
> case, I didn't actually install the modules. Is that error perhaps
> only detected at install time?
Oh, I take that back. I just got a
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Of course, I only did a "make allmodconfig" to test the MODVERSIONS
> case, I didn't actually install the modules. Is that error perhaps
> only detected at install time?
Oh, I take that back. I just got a ton of warnings with my
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>
> If CONFIG_MODVERSIONS is enabled,
> I notice lots of error messages.
> WARNING: EXPORT symbol "finish_open" [vmlinux] version generation
> failed, symbol will not be versioned
>
> So, I think something was
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>
> If CONFIG_MODVERSIONS is enabled,
> I notice lots of error messages.
> WARNING: EXPORT symbol "finish_open" [vmlinux] version generation
> failed, symbol will not be versioned
>
> So, I think something was broken in scripts/genksyms/.
>
Hi Linus,
Very sorry that I had not responded quickly.
When I was digging into tool version dependency,
as you pointed out, gperf is a problem (but seemed one time breakage
for gperf 3.1)
flex seemed very stable for a long time.
bison seemed a bit problem if old version is used.
But, I did
Hi Linus,
Very sorry that I had not responded quickly.
When I was digging into tool version dependency,
as you pointed out, gperf is a problem (but seemed one time breakage
for gperf 3.1)
flex seemed very stable for a long time.
bison seemed a bit problem if old version is used.
But, I did
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Anybody want to look at just getting rid of the gperf use?
I took a stab at it. It wasn't too bad, although I think this needs a
*lot* of testing, and I think it needs checking of Makefile
dependencies
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Anybody want to look at just getting rid of the gperf use?
I took a stab at it. It wasn't too bad, although I think this needs a
*lot* of testing, and I think it needs checking of Makefile
dependencies etc.
NOTE NOTE NOTE! This may be
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So one of the advantages of the pre-shipped files is that we can avoid
> that kind of crazy version issues with the tools.
Side note: the traditional way to handle this is autoconf etc. Since I
think
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So one of the advantages of the pre-shipped files is that we can avoid
> that kind of crazy version issues with the tools.
Side note: the traditional way to handle this is autoconf etc. Since I
think autoconf is evil crap, I refuse to
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>
> Here is one question. Is it acceptable to use those rules all the time?
> That is, generate those C files by flex, bison, gperf during the
> kernel building.
Yeah, I think we probably should do that.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>
> Here is one question. Is it acceptable to use those rules all the time?
> That is, generate those C files by flex, bison, gperf during the
> kernel building.
Yeah, I think we probably should do that.
However, when I just tested, I
Hi,
I am stuck in a similar problem recent days by chance.
I am just curious about the purpose of introduction of these *_shipped
file, are they just for user's convenience when user doesn't install the
those tools?
--
Sincerely,
Cao jin
On 08/19/2017 04:49 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> In
Hi,
I am stuck in a similar problem recent days by chance.
I am just curious about the purpose of introduction of these *_shipped
file, are they just for user's convenience when user doesn't install the
those tools?
--
Sincerely,
Cao jin
On 08/19/2017 04:49 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> In
In Linux build system convention, we do not run tools such as
flex, bison, gperf during the kernel building. Instead, manage
generated C files in the repository with _shipped suffixes.
They are simply shipped (copied) removing the _shipped suffixes
during the kernel building.
Commit 7373f4f83c71
In Linux build system convention, we do not run tools such as
flex, bison, gperf during the kernel building. Instead, manage
generated C files in the repository with _shipped suffixes.
They are simply shipped (copied) removing the _shipped suffixes
during the kernel building.
Commit 7373f4f83c71
28 matches
Mail list logo