Re: [kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH 3/4] printk: Drop pr_warning definition

[Petr Mladek]

On Sat 2019-11-30 17:03:16, Philip Li wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:53:47PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2019-11-28 15:14:36, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > Hi Kefeng,
> > > 
> > > Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
> > > 
> > > [auto build test ERROR on wq/for-next]
> > > [cannot apply to pmladek/for-next v5.4 next-20191127]
> > > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
> > > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
> > > base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
> > > 
> > > url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kefeng-Wang/part2-kill-pr_warning-from-kernel/20191128-085343
> > > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git for-next
> > > config: i386-defconfig (attached as .config)
> > > compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.4.0-14) 7.4.0
> > > reproduce:
> > >         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > >         make ARCH=i386 
> > > 
> > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > 
> > >    drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c: In function 'eeepc_rfkill_hotplug':
> > > >> drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c:581:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'pr_warning'; did you mean 'acpi_warning'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > >       pr_warning("Unable to find port\n");
> > >       ^~~~~~~~~~
> > >       acpi_warning
> > >    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > These are false positives. These pr_warning() calls have already been
> > removed in mainline via a pull request from printk.git.
> thanks, we will check this to improve.
> 
> > 
> > Best Regards.
> > Petr
> > 
> > 
> > tj/wq.git for-next branch is outdated.
> > This branch is outdated. The 
> Thanks for the info Petr, we will look into this to resolve the out of
> dated base. In this case, do you have any recommended base to use?

Good question. These kind of problems should be solved in linux-next
git tree.

Well, I am not sure how often you see these false positives. I think
that they happen only where there is some global change that affects
many subsystems and is done in more stages.

In this case, we removed most pr_warning() users in one patchset. Then
we removed the remaining (new) users and the function definition
in another patchset. It might be a corner case that does not need
any changes on your side.

Best Regards,
Petr
most