Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 05:11:15PM +0800, Zhangshaokun wrote:
> There is a compiler failure on arm64 platform, as follow:
> 
>   AS      arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.o
>   CC      kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
> In file included from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:0:
> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:176:7: error: redeclaration of enumerator âNONEâ
>   hook(NONE)   \
>        ^
> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:188:34: note: in definition of macro â__ima_hook_enumifyâ
>  #define __ima_hook_enumify(ENUM) ENUM,
>                                   ^
> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:191:2: note: in expansion of macro â__ima_hooksâ
>   __ima_hooks(__ima_hook_enumify)
>   ^
> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h:15:0,
>                  from ./include/acpi/acpi_io.h:7,
>                  from ./include/linux/acpi.h:47,
>                  from ./include/linux/tpm.h:26,
>                  from security/integrity/ima/ima.h:25,
>                  from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:
> ./include/linux/efi.h:1716:2: note: previous definition of âNONEâ was here
>   NONE,
>   ^
> scripts/Makefile.build:276: recipe for target 'security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o' failed
> make[3]: *** [security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o] Error 1
> 
> I dug it and it is the commit 901615cb916d ("tpm: move tpm_chip definition to include/linux/tpm.h")

This results from a new include in tpm.h:

  #include <linux/acpi.h>

Must be fixed either in include/linux/efi.h or security/integrity/ima.h as
those files have a name collision. Makes me wonder why neither has taken
care of prefixing the constants properly.

/Jarkko