Re: [PATCH net-next] liquidio: 'imply' ptp instead of 'select'

[David Miller]

From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:44:32 -0500 (EST)

> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016, David Miller wrote:
> 
>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sat,  3 Dec 2016 00:04:32 +0100
>> 
>> > ptp now depends on the optional POSIX_TIMERS setting and fails to build
>> > if we select it without that:
>> > 
>> > warning: (LIQUIDIO_VF && TI_CPTS) selects PTP_1588_CLOCK which has unmet direct dependencies (NET && POSIX_TIMERS)
>> > warning: (LIQUIDIO_VF && TI_CPTS) selects PTP_1588_CLOCK which has unmet direct dependencies (NET && POSIX_TIMERS)
>> > ERROR: "posix_clock_unregister" [drivers/ptp/ptp.ko] undefined!
>> > ERROR: "posix_clock_register" [drivers/ptp/ptp.ko] undefined!
>> > ERROR: "pps_unregister_source" [drivers/ptp/ptp.ko] undefined!
>> > ERROR: "pps_event" [drivers/ptp/ptp.ko] undefined!
>> > ERROR: "pps_register_source" [drivers/ptp/ptp.ko] undefined!
>> > 
>> > It seems that two patches have collided here, the build failure
>> > is a result of the combination. Changing the new option to 'imply'
>> > as well fixes it.
>> > 
>> > Fixes: 111fc64a237f ("liquidio CN23XX: VF registration")
>> > Fixes: d1cbfd771ce8 ("ptp_clock: Allow for it to be optional")
>> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Like the kbuild robot, when I apply this it complains about 'imply' being
>> an unknown option.
>> 
>> I guess it worked for you because support for 'imply' exists in the -next
>> tree and gets pulled in from somewhere else.
> 
> Exact.
> 
>> In any event, as-is I cannot apply this.
> 
> It should be carried in linux-next for the time being, and suggested as 
> a probable "merge resolution" to Linus when submitting your tree for 
> merging.  I think that's the best that can be done.

This means the build of pure net-next is broken, which is unacceptble, as
this is the tree that many developers do their work and build tests against.

You cannot have the proper functioning of net-next depend upon something
not in that tree.

Therefore, you must resolve this without the 'imply' keyword somehow.

Thanks.