| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: linux-next: alacrity tree build failure
|
To: |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: linux-next: alacrity tree build failure |
|
From: |
Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:16 -0800 |
|
Cc: |
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@xxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:56:37 -0800 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<4B0C7D21.7010008@xxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<20091124185843.d2cab90c.sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B0C7D21.7010008@xxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:41:05PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 11/23/09 23:58, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next build (x86_6 _allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > drivers/vbus/built-in.o:(.data+0x0): multiple definition of
> > `dev_attr_modalias'
> > drivers/xen/built-in.o:(.data+0x46d0): first defined here
> >
> > Caused by commit 59aa8f441d27c8470764a513dafa46a77f33e953 ("vbus: add
> > autoprobe capability to guest"). The DEVICE_ATTR(modalias ...) should
> > probably be static. I should probably be static in
> > drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_probe.c as well.
> >
>
> All those DEVICE_ATTR()s should be static in that case. Indeed, I guess
> they should be almost universally? Should DEVICE_ATTR() include the
> static? (Hm, almost every instance in the kernel already has static; it
> should probably have been part of the definition from the start, but
> changing it now would cause a lot of churn.)
There are some "non static" usages, mostly to deal with stuff within a
module that takes more than one file. They could probably all be fixed
up if someone really is bored :)
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home