Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kbuild: Remove stale asm-generic wrappers

[James Hogan]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0000, James Hogan wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 03:27:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 January 2016 14:22:13 James Hogan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 03:09:14PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 19 January 2016 13:37:50 James Hogan wrote:
> > > > > When a header file is removed from generic-y (often accompanied by the
> > > > > addition of an arch specific header), the generated wrapper file will
> > > > > persist, and in some cases may still take precedence over the new arch
> > > > > header.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For example commit f1fe2d21f4e1 ("MIPS: Add definitions for extended
> > > > > context") removed ucontext.h from generic-y in arch/mips/include/asm/,
> > > > > and added an arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/ucontext.h. The continued use of
> > > > > the wrapper when reusing a dirty build tree resulted in build failures
> > > > > in arch/mips/kernel/signal.c:
> > > > > 
> > > > > arch/mips/kernel/signal.c: In function âsc_to_extcontextâ:
> > > > > arch/mips/kernel/signal.c:142:12: error: âstruct ucontextâ has no member named âuc_extcontextâ
> > > > >   return &uc->uc_extcontext;
> > > > >             ^
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fix by detecting and removing wrapper headers in generated header
> > > > > directories that do not correspond to a filename in generic-y, genhdr-y,
> > > > > or the newly introduced generated-y.
> > > > 
> > > > Good idea.
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Thanks Arnd
> > > 
> > > > Can you merge this through the mips tree, or do you need me to pick it
> > > > up through asm-generic?
> > > 
> > > I was envisaging the kbuild tree tbh, but I don't really mind how it
> > > gets merged. This patch depends on patch 1, which adds generated-y to
> > > x86 so we don't delete their other generated headers, but other than
> > > that it doesn't really have any dependencies.
> > 
> > Ok, the kbuild tree works fine too, and I guess the x86 tree would
> > also be fine if that helps avoid the dependency.
> 
> Were you okay to take these patches, or would you prefer they go via the
> MIPS tree?

I'm keen for these two patches to make their way upstream one way or
another.

Ralf: Since it affects MIPS, would you be able to take them?

Cheers
James

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature