Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/57] 4.4.77-stable review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 01:16:31PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:21:10PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 02:07:45PM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote:
> >> >> stable-rc/linux-4.4.y boot: 99 boots: 1 failed, 92 passed with 5 offline, 1 conflict (v4.4.76-58-g1a12e8e8a429)
> >> >
> >> > Any idea how 0-day and Guenter's system found problems with this
> >> > release, but you all didn't?  Do you not have any SH systems in
> >> > kernelci?
> >>
> >> kernelci does not do any SH builds, but it did catch this driver in
> 
> Despite the sh-pfc name (from legacy "shmobile"), this is a pinctrl driver
> for an ARM SoC.
> 
> >> the allmodconfig
> >> builds and a couple of ARM builds that use the same one, see the mail with
> >> subject "stable-rc/linux-4.4.y build: 199 builds: 10 failed, 189
> >> passed, 30 errors,
> >> 4 warnings (v4.4.76-58-g1a12e8e8a429)":
> >>
> >> Errors summary:
> >>
> >>      10  drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7791.c:1096:2: error: implicit
> >> declaration of function 'PINMUX_IPSR_GPSR'
> >> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >>      10  drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7791.c:1096:28: error:
> >> 'DVC_MUTE' undeclared here (not in a function)
> >>      10  drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7791.c:1096:19: error:
> >> 'IP6_2_0' undeclared here (not in a function)
> >
> > Where is that email?  I never got that, I only got this email
> > response...
> 
> BTW, both you and I should have received the following email from
> kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> [linux-stable-rc:linux-4.4.y 4899/4940]
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7791.c:1096:2: error: implicit
> declaration of function 'PINMUX_IPSR_GPSR'

Yes, I got the 0-day bot email, as I stated way up above, I was
wondering why kernel.ci didn't catch it.  Looks like it did, just that
it never told me about it :)

thanks,

greg k-h-