Message ID | CAPM=9twAN82gkzrfc2CGQopjkjEdWtBKMF2DgBOtw+6RsZ++fw@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [git,pull] drm fixes round two for 5.13-rc1 | expand |
The pull request you sent on Mon, 10 May 2021 04:16:02 +1000:
> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm tags/drm-next-2021-05-10
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/efc58a96adcd29cc37487a60582d9d08b34f6640
Thank you!
On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 11:16 AM Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bit later than usual, I queued them all up on Friday then promptly > forgot to write the pull request email. This is mainly amdgpu fixes, > with some radeon/msm/fbdev and one i915 gvt fix thrown in. Hmm. Gcc seems ok with this, but clang complains: drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c:736:21: warning: attribute declaration must precede definition [-Wignored-attributes] static const struct __maybe_unused seq_operations proc_fb_seq_ops = { ^ but I noticed it only after I had already pushed out the pull. I'm actually surprised that gcc accepted that horrid mess: putting "__maybe_unused" between the "struct" and the struct name is very very wrong. I fixed it up after the merge due to not noticing earlier.. Maybe the drm test robots should start testing with clang too? Linus
On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 07:08, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 11:16 AM Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Bit later than usual, I queued them all up on Friday then promptly > > forgot to write the pull request email. This is mainly amdgpu fixes, > > with some radeon/msm/fbdev and one i915 gvt fix thrown in. > > Hmm. Gcc seems ok with this, but clang complains: > > drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c:736:21: warning: attribute > declaration must precede definition [-Wignored-attributes] > static const struct __maybe_unused seq_operations proc_fb_seq_ops = { > ^ > > but I noticed it only after I had already pushed out the pull. > > I'm actually surprised that gcc accepted that horrid mess: putting > "__maybe_unused" between the "struct" and the struct name is very very > wrong. > > I fixed it up after the merge due to not noticing earlier.. > > Maybe the drm test robots should start testing with clang too? My current build, test + sign machine " 09:23:22 up 419 days", running fc29, has clang 7 which is my current blocker on implementing a clang bit in my build cycles. The machine is in an office, that due to RH not being able to fathom a country where COVID isn't rampant, I have to fill insane amounts of paperwork and high management intervention to visit, I'm afraid to remote upgrade or reboot it unless I really have to. I've some rough ideas to update it to f33/34 which would give me a good enough clang, I suppose I could just build my own llvm/clang I've done so for years for other reasons, if I can't come up with an update plan soon I might consider it. Dave.
On 5/9/21 2:08 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 11:16 AM Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Bit later than usual, I queued them all up on Friday then promptly >> forgot to write the pull request email. This is mainly amdgpu fixes, >> with some radeon/msm/fbdev and one i915 gvt fix thrown in. > > Hmm. Gcc seems ok with this, but clang complains: > Yeah, sorry, that was supposed to fix a problem, not replace it with another one. And, as you noticed, gcc didn't complain, so I didn't realize that I created a mess (and don't ask me why I put that __maybe_unused after 'struct' - no idea). Guenter > drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c:736:21: warning: attribute > declaration must precede definition [-Wignored-attributes] > static const struct __maybe_unused seq_operations proc_fb_seq_ops = { > ^ > > but I noticed it only after I had already pushed out the pull. > > I'm actually surprised that gcc accepted that horrid mess: putting > "__maybe_unused" between the "struct" and the struct name is very very > wrong. > > I fixed it up after the merge due to not noticing earlier.. > > Maybe the drm test robots should start testing with clang too? > > Linus >