Re: [PATCH -next] tty/serial: atmel: Include module.h to fix build failure

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 01/11/2016 07:08 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On 2016-01-11 06:11 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:05:36PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:29:08AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:15:35AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>> If serial/atmel_serial.c is compiled with devicetree enabled, the
>>>>> following build error is observed.
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c:192:1: warning:
>>>>> 	data definition has no type or storage class
>>>>> drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c:192:1: error:
>>>>> 	type defaults to 'int' in declaration of 'MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE'
>>>>> drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c:192:1: warning:
>>>>> 	parameter names (without types) in function declaration
>>>>>
>>>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE is used to specify devicetree compatibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: c39dfebc7798 ("drivers/tty/serial: make serial/atmel_serial.c explicitly non-modular")
>>>>> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c | 1 +
>>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> This hit my tree last night already with commit
>>>> 041497eb721ddbdc1e690316976dd8ba7bc136a2, so all should be fine in the
>>>> next linux-next release.
>>>
>>> Hi Guenter,
>>> Just a thought. It has happended many times that we both have sent
>>> patches to fix the same build fail. Maybe your patch got applied and
>>> mine came late or maybe mine was applied and you came late. But I think
>>> if we have a separate mailing list where people interested to fix and
>>> monitor build failures will be members and we Cc that list whenever we
>>> send patch for build fail and then in that case we will know that
>>> someone else has already sent a patch for this failure and we can invest
>>> the time in some other problem.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Sudip,
>>
>> I agree, it would make sense to have a build(/runtime?)-fixes-only mailing
>> list. Question though is how to limit noise on such a list and, of course,
>> where and how to set it up. Any thoughts ?
>
> Since most (all?) of these kind of fails are on linux-next, why not

Most or many, but not all.

> do what everyone else does, and report the fail there and/or ensure
> the fix is cc'd there?   Before I waste time trying to fix sth on
> linux-next, I always google for the error msg and many times that
> leads me to a lkml or linux-next post where it was reported and
> fixed already.

Many times, Sudip and I end up fixing problems literally in parallel,
and it happened quite often lately that we do send patches in parallel.
Even if I do a Google search for an error message, it happens quite
often that I get no results, yet the fix is already out there on
some list.

Sudip, one option would be to set up a semi-private mailing list.
My build tests now have a dedicated virtual host (kerneltests.org).
I could set up a managed list there.

Guenter