Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/15] 4.4.245-rc1 review

[Daniel Axtens]

Hi,
>> Build results:
>> 	total: 165 pass: 164 fail: 1
>> Failed builds:
>> 	powerpc:ppc64e_defconfig
>> Qemu test results:
>> 	total: 328 pass: 323 fail: 5
>> Failed tests:
>> 	ppc64:ppce500:corenet64_smp_defconfig:e5500:initrd
>> 	ppc64:ppce500:corenet64_smp_defconfig:e5500:nvme:rootfs
>> 	ppc64:ppce500:corenet64_smp_defconfig:e5500:sdhci:mmc:rootfs
>> 	ppc64:ppce500:corenet64_smp_defconfig:e5500:scsi[53C895A]:rootfs
>> 	ppc64:ppce500:corenet64_smp_defconfig:e5500:sata-sii3112:rootfs	
>> 
>> Failure in all cases is:
>> 
>> In file included from arch/powerpc/kernel/ppc_ksyms.c:10:0:
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/kup-radix.h:11:29: error: redefinition of ‘allow_user_access’
>>  static __always_inline void allow_user_access(void __user *to, const void __user *from,
>>                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> In file included from arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h:12:0,
>>                  from arch/powerpc/kernel/ppc_ksyms.c:8:
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kup.h:12:20: note: previous definition of ‘allow_user_access’ was here
>>  static inline void allow_user_access(void __user *to, const void __user *from,
>>                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> In file included from arch/powerpc/kernel/ppc_ksyms.c:10:0:
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/kup-radix.h:16:20: error: redefinition of ‘prevent_user_access’
>>  static inline void prevent_user_access(void __user *to, const void __user *from,
>>                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> In file included from arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h:12:0,
>>                  from arch/powerpc/kernel/ppc_ksyms.c:8:
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kup.h:14:20: note: previous definition of ‘prevent_user_access’ was here
>>  static inline void prevent_user_access(void __user *to, const void __user *from,
>>                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 
>> Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for testing these.
>
> Daniel, looks like your patches broke some configurations on powerpc as
> shown above.  Care to send a fix-up patch for these?

Will do. I tested ppc64e_defconfig but clearly that wasn't comprehensive
enough.

Kind regards,
Daniel