[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#827561: Update 3.2.78 -> 3.2.81 broke builds in fs/fcntl.c



Control: tag -1 - patch

I've already applied a patch for this.

On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 18:08 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> Control: tags -1 patch
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:28:27PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 12:27 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > > Package: linux-source-3.2
> > > Version: 3.2.81-1
> > > Severity: important
> > > 
> > > SSIA:
> > > 
> > > ?? CC????????????fs/fcntl.o
> > > fs/fcntl.c: In function 'setfl':
> > > fs/fcntl.c:186:31: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
> > > fs/fcntl.c:187:30: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
> > > make[2]: *** [fs/fcntl.o] Error 1
> > > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> > > 
> > > That would be a problem for this update, this hunk of code is new for
> > > 3.2.81.????Seems someone forgot a header (I'm not yet sure which).
> > 
> > This code was added as part of the fix for??#627782. ??It builds
> > successfully in Debian's own configurations.
> > 
> > It looks like this build failure occurs if CONFIG_MODULES is disabled??
> > and you should be able to avoid it by enabling that.
> 
> Problem is that was a very deliberate on the particular computer.
> Unusual, but something that *should* work.
> 
> I've got a partial patch for general consumption attached.  I'm pretty
> sure the changes done for #627782 are buggy.  If someone builds a kernel
> with AUFS built into the kernel the test in fcntl.c will fail (the test
> only works if AUFS is a module).

Yes, I'm afraid so.  I can imagine that in future we might generate the
linux-source package without the ABI maintenance hacks, but it's not a
high priority for me.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class.
                      - Rachel Kadel, `A Quick Guide to Newsgroup
Etiquette'

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: