Message ID | CAK8P3a2Wp6EANLq7JZr=uAReKOhBYrc3VKUA7FpDvq7n3Lc2aQ@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL,1/3] ARM: SoC platform updates for 4.15 | expand |
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > ARM: SoC driver updates for v4.15 No. This is completely broken, and I can't imagine that it has ever compiled for *anybody*. drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:10: fatal error: dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory #include <dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h> and the compiler is completely right. This branch added that r8a77970-sysc.c file, but never added the header file. And it's not some odd merge mistake of mine: I checked. That error is there in the original branch too. Tssk. Linus
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >> >> ARM: SoC driver updates for v4.15 > > No. This is completely broken, and I can't imagine that it has ever > compiled for *anybody*. > > drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:10: fatal error: > dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory > #include <dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h> > > and the compiler is completely right. This branch added that > r8a77970-sysc.c file, but never added the header file. > > And it's not some odd merge mistake of mine: I checked. That error is > there in the original branch too. > > Tssk. Right, I need to figure out how this could have slipped through. I did get several "BUILD SUCCESS" mails from the kbuild bot (see https://pastebin.com/JDw3EKDZ), which claims to have built it successfully in all configurations, including allmodconfig builds on arm/arm64 and x86-64. Fengguang, do you remember problems with false-negatives recently? I also did my own tests based on the "for-next" branch and looked at the kernelci results of that branch, but that didn't catch the mistake as the file in question was added in the third "dt" branch. The dt-bindings/ files have caused endless problems like this in the past, and I've been very careful about spotting missing changes when they happen in my next/dt branch and complained a lot whenever someone sent me crap that didn't compile because of that. Now I've fallen into the same trap in the opposite direction, when the patch was in next/dt but missing in next/drivers. I have the third branch ready now, you should be able to merge that right away without pulling this one first as there are no dependencies. Regarding this pull request 2/3, would you prefer a) pulling it after 3/3, thereby getting a bisection problem but having contents that are otherwise tested in combination b) me to do a 'git rebase -i -p' to remove the broken pull request from underneath all the others (unfortunately it was the second of 19 branches I merged), resulting in a tree that builds cleanly without bisection issues, but that has a recent rebuild c) dropping the entire branch until the next merge window? Arnd
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:25:12AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Linus Torvalds ><torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>> >>> ARM: SoC driver updates for v4.15 >> >> No. This is completely broken, and I can't imagine that it has ever >> compiled for *anybody*. >> >> drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:10: fatal error: >> dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory >> #include <dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h> >> >> and the compiler is completely right. This branch added that >> r8a77970-sysc.c file, but never added the header file. >> >> And it's not some odd merge mistake of mine: I checked. That error is >> there in the original branch too. >> >> Tssk. > >Right, I need to figure out how this could have slipped through. I did >get several "BUILD SUCCESS" mails from the kbuild bot (see >https://pastebin.com/JDw3EKDZ), which claims to have built it >successfully in all configurations, including allmodconfig builds on >arm/arm64 and x86-64. Fengguang, do you remember problems >with false-negatives recently? Sorry I checked log and didn't find any 0day reports for that error. It actually hit the errors several times: drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:11: sparse: unable to open 'dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h' 2017-10-21 07:23:12 on arm-soc/next/drivers 1c6788e8746d5250ad9bd16e1e48140a396f4733 x86_64-allmodconfig drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:45: fatal error: dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory 2017-11-03 07:45:22 on arm-soc/next/drivers 30f3b0678ce6fc46bcdde61ca35821032d0f25b5 i386-allmodconfig 2017-11-03 08:42:45 on arm-soc/next/drivers 30f3b0678ce6fc46bcdde61ca35821032d0f25b5 arm-allmodconfig 2017-11-03 08:43:06 on arm-soc/next/drivers 30f3b0678ce6fc46bcdde61ca35821032d0f25b5 arm64-allmodconfig So the robot is not working well in that case, I'll work with Philip to get that fixed. Regards, Fengguang
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > Regarding this pull request 2/3, would you prefer > > a) pulling it after 3/3, thereby getting a bisection problem > but having contents that are otherwise tested in combination Gaah. I'll do that. You guys have been good for so long that a one-time mistake isn't worth worrying about. But please do make sure that your infrastructure actually checks the branches individually in the future. Particularly since I only do the x86-64 build, so I obviously inevitably miss a lot of potential problems in the ARM SoC branches. Linus
Hi Arnd, Linus, On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>> >>> ARM: SoC driver updates for v4.15 >> >> No. This is completely broken, and I can't imagine that it has ever >> compiled for *anybody*. >> >> drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:10: fatal error: >> dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory >> #include <dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h> >> >> and the compiler is completely right. This branch added that >> r8a77970-sysc.c file, but never added the header file. >> >> And it's not some odd merge mistake of mine: I checked. That error is >> there in the original branch too. >> >> Tssk. > > Right, I need to figure out how this could have slipped through. I did > get several "BUILD SUCCESS" mails from the kbuild bot (see > https://pastebin.com/JDw3EKDZ), which claims to have built it > successfully in all configurations, including allmodconfig builds on > arm/arm64 and x86-64. Fengguang, do you remember problems > with false-negatives recently? > > I also did my own tests based on the "for-next" branch and looked > at the kernelci results of that branch, but that didn't catch the > mistake as the file in question was added in the third "dt" branch. > > The dt-bindings/ files have caused endless problems like this > in the past, and I've been very careful about spotting missing > changes when they happen in my next/dt branch and complained > a lot whenever someone sent me crap that didn't compile because > of that. Now I've fallen into the same trap in the opposite direction, > when the patch was in next/dt but missing in next/drivers. What happened is that Simon queued up the header file in his dt-bindings branch, without noticing it was needed by his drivers branch. The dt-bindings header files are sometimes needed by both the drivers and dt branches, while policy requests they are in their own branch. For the dt branch, the current trend is to break the dependency by hardcoding the numbers in the DTS files initially, and replacing them by defines during the next merge window. For the drivers branch, it looks like dt-bindings/power/r8a779*-sysc.h header files were just queued up in the drivers branch previously, together with the drivers, avoiding the issue, but breaking the policy... Sorry for the mess. We'll be more careful. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:31:47AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Arnd, Linus, > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> ARM: SoC driver updates for v4.15 > >> > >> No. This is completely broken, and I can't imagine that it has ever > >> compiled for *anybody*. > >> > >> drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:10: fatal error: > >> dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory > >> #include <dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h> > >> > >> and the compiler is completely right. This branch added that > >> r8a77970-sysc.c file, but never added the header file. > >> > >> And it's not some odd merge mistake of mine: I checked. That error is > >> there in the original branch too. > >> > >> Tssk. > > > > Right, I need to figure out how this could have slipped through. I did > > get several "BUILD SUCCESS" mails from the kbuild bot (see > > https://pastebin.com/JDw3EKDZ), which claims to have built it > > successfully in all configurations, including allmodconfig builds on > > arm/arm64 and x86-64. Fengguang, do you remember problems > > with false-negatives recently? > > > > I also did my own tests based on the "for-next" branch and looked > > at the kernelci results of that branch, but that didn't catch the > > mistake as the file in question was added in the third "dt" branch. > > > > The dt-bindings/ files have caused endless problems like this > > in the past, and I've been very careful about spotting missing > > changes when they happen in my next/dt branch and complained > > a lot whenever someone sent me crap that didn't compile because > > of that. Now I've fallen into the same trap in the opposite direction, > > when the patch was in next/dt but missing in next/drivers. > > What happened is that Simon queued up the header file in his > dt-bindings branch, without noticing it was needed by his drivers branch. > > The dt-bindings header files are sometimes needed by both the drivers > and dt branches, while policy requests they are in their own branch. > For the dt branch, the current trend is to break the dependency by hardcoding > the numbers in the DTS files initially, and replacing them by defines during > the next merge window. > For the drivers branch, it looks like dt-bindings/power/r8a779*-sysc.h header > files were just queued up in the drivers branch previously, together with the > drivers, avoiding the issue, but breaking the policy... > > Sorry for the mess. We'll be more careful. I'm terribly sorry about this. We will be more careful in future.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:25:12AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Linus Torvalds > ><torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> ARM: SoC driver updates for v4.15 > >> > >> No. This is completely broken, and I can't imagine that it has ever > >> compiled for *anybody*. > >> > >> drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:10: fatal error: > >> dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory > >> #include <dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h> > >> > >> and the compiler is completely right. This branch added that > >> r8a77970-sysc.c file, but never added the header file. > >> > >> And it's not some odd merge mistake of mine: I checked. That error is > >> there in the original branch too. > >> > >> Tssk. > > > >Right, I need to figure out how this could have slipped through. I did > >get several "BUILD SUCCESS" mails from the kbuild bot (see > >https://pastebin.com/JDw3EKDZ), which claims to have built it > >successfully in all configurations, including allmodconfig builds on > >arm/arm64 and x86-64. Fengguang, do you remember problems > >with false-negatives recently? > > Sorry I checked log and didn't find any 0day reports for that error. > > It actually hit the errors several times: > > drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:11: sparse: unable to open 'dt- > bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h' > > 2017-10-21 07:23:12 on arm-soc/next/drivers > 1c6788e8746d5250ad9bd16e1e48140a396f4733 x86_64-allmodconfig > > > drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:45: fatal error: dt- > bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory > > 2017-11-03 07:45:22 on arm-soc/next/drivers > 30f3b0678ce6fc46bcdde61ca35821032d0f25b5 i386-allmodconfig > 2017-11-03 08:42:45 on arm-soc/next/drivers > 30f3b0678ce6fc46bcdde61ca35821032d0f25b5 arm-allmodconfig > 2017-11-03 08:43:06 on arm-soc/next/drivers > 30f3b0678ce6fc46bcdde61ca35821032d0f25b5 arm64-allmodconfig > > So the robot is not working well in that case, I'll work with Philip > to get that fixed. Thanks Arnd/Fengguang. After the investigation from Shun, it shows the bisect works as expected and can identify the bad commit. But this missing report issue is because the build test server that runs the bisect happens to have permission issue that prevents mutt to lock the "sent" file. This is more serious than expected since the issue has been there for quite long time. I apologize for the misleading information provided that there's no error reported out. We will monitor all the details carefully. > > Regards, > Fengguang