Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-10-19 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 11:42 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:49:29 am Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 08:27 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > My perspective is that it just uncovered already existing brokenness. > > > > Sorry, I thought it was clear, but to be m

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-10-19 Thread Rusty Russell
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:49:29 am Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 08:27 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > My perspective is that it just uncovered already existing brokenness. > > Sorry, I thought it was clear, but to be more explicit: I propose the > following patch, which replaces the

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-10-19 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 08:27 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Hollis Blanchard 15.10.09 00:57 >>> > >On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 12:14 -0700, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > >> Rusty's version of BUILD_BUG_ON() does indeed fix the build break, and > >> also exposes the bug in kvmppc_account_exit_stat(). So to r

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-10-15 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> Hollis Blanchard 15.10.09 00:57 >>> >On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 12:14 -0700, Hollis Blanchard wrote: >> Rusty's version of BUILD_BUG_ON() does indeed fix the build break, and >> also exposes the bug in kvmppc_account_exit_stat(). So to recap: >> >> original: built but didn't work >> Jan's: doesn't

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-10-14 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 12:14 -0700, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > Rusty's version of BUILD_BUG_ON() does indeed fix the build break, and > also exposes the bug in kvmppc_account_exit_stat(). So to recap: > > original: built but didn't work > Jan's: doesn't build > Rusty's: builds and works > > Where d

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-10-09 Thread Hollis Blanchard
Rusty's version of BUILD_BUG_ON() does indeed fix the build break, and also exposes the bug in kvmppc_account_exit_stat(). So to recap: original: built but didn't work Jan's: doesn't build Rusty's: builds and works Where do you want to go from here? -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Cent

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-10-04 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> Hollis Blanchard 02.10.09 17:48 >>> >On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> The one Rusty suggested the other day may help here. I don't like it >> as a drop-in replacement for BUILD_BUG_ON() though (due to it >> deferring the error generated to the linking stage), I'd rather

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-10-02 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Hollis Blanchard 30.09.09 01:39 >>> > >On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:28 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> > >> >First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like > >> >this (to match

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-09-29 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> Hollis Blanchard 30.09.09 01:39 >>> >On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:28 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> >> >First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like >> >this (to match the comment): >> >/* type has to be known at build time for

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-09-29 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> roel kluin 29.09.09 11:51 >>> >On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> >>>First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like >>>this (to match the comment): >>>/* type has to be known at build time for optimizat

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-09-29 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:28 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> > >First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like > >this (to match the comment): > >/* type has to be known at build time for optimization */ > >-BUILD_BUG_ON(__builti

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-09-29 Thread roel kluin
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: Hollis Blanchard  09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> >>First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like >>this (to match the comment): >>    /* type has to be known at build time for optimization */ >>-    BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_con

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-09-29 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> >First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like >this (to match the comment): >/* type has to be known at build time for optimization */ >-BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(type)); >+BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(ty

Re: linux-next: tree build failure

2009-09-28 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 15:21 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc44x_defconfig) failed like this: > > In file included from arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c:31: > arch/powerpc/kvm/timing.h: In function 'kvmppc_account_exit_stat': > arch/powerpc/kvm/timing.h:51

linux-next: tree build failure

2009-09-23 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc44x_defconfig) failed like this: In file included from arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c:31: arch/powerpc/kvm/timing.h: In function 'kvmppc_account_exit_stat': arch/powerpc/kvm/timing.h:51: error: bit-field '' width not an integer constant In file included fro