Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the kunit-next tree

[Shuah Khan]

Hi Stephen,

On 3/1/24 13:46, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Shuah,
>
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 09:05:57 -0700 Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 3/1/24 03:43, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:15:02 +0800 David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 23:07, Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > I can carry the fix through kselftest kunit if it works
> > > > > for all.
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy for this to go in with the KUnit changes if that's the best
> > > > way to keep all of the printk formatting fixes together.
>
> Unfortunately you can't fix this in the kunit-next tree without pulling
> in Linus' tree (or the drm-fixes tree) - which seems excessive.
>    
> > > I am pretty sure that the proper fix has been applied to the
> > > drm-fixes tree today (in the merge of the drm-misc-fixes tree).
> > >    
> >
> > What's the commit id for this fix? I Would like to include the details
> > in my pull request to Linus.
>
> My mistake, I misread the merge commit.  It has not been fixed in the
> drm-misc-fixes tree or the drm-fixes tree (or Linus' tree since the
> drm-fixes tree has been merged there) :-(
>
> The problem in this case is not with the format string types, but with
> a missing argument i.e. there is another argument required by the
> format string.  It really should be fixed in the drm-misc-fixes tree
> and sent to Linus post haste.
>
> At least the change in the kunit-next tree will stop this happening in
> the future.

Thank you for looking into it.

David, please send a fix in as you suggested earlier. I will apply
it to avoid compile errors.

thanks,
-- Shuah