Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting for events

[Fengguang Wu]

Hi Yu,

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 01:33:10AM +0000, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> Hi,  Fengguang, 
> I've forgotten to add --thread-shallow when doing git format-patch, thanks!

Never mind, --thread-shallow helps but won't be unnecessary.
I'll improve the patchset detection logic.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-pm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-pm-
> > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fengguang Wu
> > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:22 AM
> > To: Chen, Yu C
> > Cc: kbuild-all@xxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; Zhang, Rui;
> > Zheng, Lv; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Li, Philip
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting for events
> > 
> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:08:29AM +0800, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> > > This should not be a valid warning IMO, because PATCH 2/3 is  based on
> > > PATCH 1/3, and the warning of implicit declaration is defined in PATCH
> > > 1/3.
> > 
> > Yes sorry, the robot treats the patchset as 3 independent patches:
> > 
> > 2754 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu         (  34:0) [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq
> > when waiting for events
> > 2756 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu         (  52:0) [PATCH 3/3][v2] ACPI / PM: Fix incorrect
> > wakeup irq setting before suspend-to-idle
> > 2757 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu         (  75:0) [PATCH 1/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq
> > when uninstalling acpi irq handler
> > 
> > And the root cause is, the 3 patches are likely sent one by one _out of order_.
> > And there is no in-reply-to field to help reorder them into a logical patchset.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: lkp
> > > > Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 1:19 AM
> > > > To: Chen, Yu C
> > > > Cc: kbuild-all@xxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; Zhang,
> > > > Rui; Zheng, Lv; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chen, Yu C;
> > > > stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting
> > > > for events
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chen,
> > > >
> > > > [auto build test ERROR on pm/linux-next -- if it's inappropriate
> > > > base, please suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base]
> > > >
> > > > url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Chen-Yu/ACPI-Using-
> > > > correct-irq-when-waiting-for-events/20151025-010210
> > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-x015-201543 (attached as .config)
> > > > reproduce:
> > > >         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > >         make ARCH=x86_64
> > > >
> > > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > >
> > > >    In file included from include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:1:0,
> > > >                     from include/linux/stddef.h:4,
> > > >                     from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:4,
> > > >                     from include/uapi/linux/types.h:13,
> > > >                     from include/linux/types.h:5,
> > > >                     from include/linux/list.h:4,
> > > >                     from include/linux/module.h:9,
> > > >                     from drivers/acpi/osl.c:26:
> > > >    drivers/acpi/osl.c: In function 'acpi_os_wait_events_complete':
> > > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:6: error: implicit declaration of
> > > > >> function
> > > > 'acpi_sci_irq_valid' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > >      if (acpi_sci_irq_valid())
> > > >          ^
> > > >    include/linux/compiler.h:147:28: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if'
> > > >      if (__builtin_constant_p((cond)) ? !!(cond) :   \
> > > >                                ^
> > > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > >      if (acpi_sci_irq_valid())
> > > >      ^
> > > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: error: 'acpi_sci_irq' undeclared
> > > > >> (first use in this
> > > > function)
> > > >       synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq);
> > > >                           ^
> > > >    drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: note: each undeclared identifier is
> > > > reported only once for each function it appears in
> > > >    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > > >
> > > > vim +/acpi_sci_irq_valid +1183 drivers/acpi/osl.c
> > > >
> > > >   1177	void acpi_os_wait_events_complete(void)
> > > >   1178	{
> > > >   1179		/*
> > > >   1180		 * Make sure the GPE handler or the fixed event
> > handler is
> > > > not used
> > > >   1181		 * on another CPU after removal.
> > > >   1182		 */
> > > > > 1183		if (acpi_sci_irq_valid())
> > > > > 1184			synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq);
> > > >   1185		flush_workqueue(kacpid_wq);
> > > >   1186		flush_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq);
> > > >   1187	}
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure                Open Source Technology Center
> > > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all                   Intel Corporation
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the
> > body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at
> > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> 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/
--
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/