linux-next: build failure after merge of the kbuild tree

Hi Masahiro,

After merging the kbuild tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
modules_install) failed like this:

Usage: scripts/depmod.sh /sbin/depmod <kernelrelease> <symbolprefix>
Makefile:1314: recipe for target '_modinst_post' failed

Caused by commit

  ea7ad9856a2c ("depmod.sh: remove symbol prefix support")

I added the following fix for today:

From: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 15:47:33 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] depmod.sh: fix syntax check and uage message

fixes: ea7ad9856a2c ("depmod.sh: remove symbol prefix support")
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>
---
 scripts/depmod.sh | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/depmod.sh b/scripts/depmod.sh
index 421d1aa01304..1a6f85e0e6e1 100755
--- a/scripts/depmod.sh
+++ b/scripts/depmod.sh

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@
 #
 # A depmod wrapper used by the toplevel Makefile
 
-if test $# -ne 3; then
-	echo "Usage: $0 /sbin/depmod <kernelrelease> <symbolprefix>" >&2
+if test $# -ne 2; then
+	echo "Usage: $0 /sbin/depmod <kernelrelease>" >&2
 	exit 1
 fi
 DEPMOD=$1

-- 
2.17.0

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Stephen,


2018-05-15 14:50 GMT+09:00 Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref]:

Hi Masahiro,

After merging the kbuild tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
modules_install) failed like this:

Usage: scripts/depmod.sh /sbin/depmod <kernelrelease> <symbolprefix>
Makefile:1314: recipe for target '_modinst_post' failed

Caused by commit

  ea7ad9856a2c ("depmod.sh: remove symbol prefix support")

I added the following fix for today:

From: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 15:47:33 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] depmod.sh: fix syntax check and uage message

fixes: ea7ad9856a2c ("depmod.sh: remove symbol prefix support")
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>
---

Thanks for catching this.

How should I handle your fix-up?

May I squash into the original one if you ack to do it,
or is it better to keep it as a separate patch?

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Hi Masahiro,

On Wed, 16 May 2018 15:01:38 +0900 Masahiro Yamada [off-list ref] wrote:

How should I handle your fix-up?

May I squash into the original one if you ack to do it,
or is it better to keep it as a separate patch?

Either way is fine by me, but the former reduces the bisection gap.  So
it depends on whether you want to rebase your tree or not.

Acked-by: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Stephen,

2018-05-16 16:26 GMT+09:00 Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref]:

Hi Masahiro,

On Wed, 16 May 2018 15:01:38 +0900 Masahiro Yamada [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

How should I handle your fix-up?

May I squash into the original one if you ack to do it,
or is it better to keep it as a separate patch?

Either way is fine by me, but the former reduces the bisection gap.  So
it depends on whether you want to rebase your tree or not.

Acked-by: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>

Thanks!  Squashed now.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada