Em Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 05:06:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell escreveu:
> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the fixes tree, today's linux-next build (perf powerpcle)
> failed like this:
> 
> arch/powerpc/util/header.c:17:1: error: no previous prototype for 'get_cpuid' 
> [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>  get_cpuid(char *buffer, size_t sz)
>  ^
> arch/powerpc/util/header.c: In function 'get_cpuid':
> arch/powerpc/util/header.c:24:7: error: implicit declaration of function 
> 'scnprintf' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   nb = scnprintf(buffer, sz, "%lu,%lu$", PVR_VER(pvr), PVR_REV(pvr));
>        ^
> arch/powerpc/util/header.c:24:2: error: nested extern declaration of 
> 'scnprintf' [-Werror=nested-externs]
>   nb = scnprintf(buffer, sz, "%lu,%lu$", PVR_VER(pvr), PVR_REV(pvr));
>   ^
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>   531d2410635c ("perf tools: Do not include stringify.h from the kernel 
> sources")
> 
> I added the following fix patch for for today:

I have the fix and got a docker image with ubuntu cross-compiling to
ppc64 and ppc64le, will submit the patch now.

- Arnaldo
 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:44:26 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] perf tools: we stil need header.h for various things
> 
> Fixes:  531d2410635c ("perf tools: Do not include stringify.h from the kernel 
> sources")
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/header.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/header.c 
> b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/header.c
> index 6138bdef6e63..8a0191a11f87 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/header.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/header.c
> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
>  #include <string.h>
>  #include <linux/stringify.h>
>  
> +#include "../../util/header.h"
> +
>  #define mfspr(rn)       ({unsigned long rval; \
>                        asm volatile("mfspr %0," __stringify(rn) \
>                                     : "=r" (rval)); rval; })
> -- 
> 2.7.0
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

Reply via email to