Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 25 (net/sock.h, jump_label, memcg)

[Glauber Costa]

On 01/27/2012 01:46 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:31:13 +0400 Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > On the specifics of this bug, I verified this config compiles okay in
> > your tree + my patches at the day I last sent them. I also verified it
> > breaks on the tree today.
> >
> > The reason seems to be that some other patch tweaked with the header
> > files in an unrelated patch, and the static_branch definition that was
> > getting to us in sock.h, is no longer getting there.
> >
> > Including it explicitly fixes it here. I will again pass through a
> > battery of randconfigs on my own, and send you a fix.
>
> Which is one of the reasons we have Rule 1 in Documentation/SubmitChecklist:
>
> 1: If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
>     that facility.  Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones
>     that you use.
I understand that. I wasn't saying I am not to blame, just why this 
wasn't catched in any test of mine before.

The fix is on its way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/