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

[Shuah Khan]

Hi Stephen,

On 3/1/24 15:30, Shuah Khan wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On 3/1/24 13:46, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Shuah,
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 09:05:57 -0700 Shuah Khan <skhan at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/1/24 03:43, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:15:02 +0800 David Gow <davidgow at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 23:07, Shuah Khan <skhan at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can carry the fix through kselftest kunit if it works
>>>>>> for all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy for this to go in with the KUnit changes if that's the best
>>>>> way to keep all of the printk formatting fixes together.
>>
>> Unfortunately you can't fix this in the kunit-next tree without pulling
>> in Linus' tree (or the drm-fixes tree) - which seems excessive.
>>>> I am pretty sure that the proper fix has been applied to the
>>>> drm-fixes tree today (in the merge of the drm-misc-fixes tree).
>>>

I misread your message.

>>> What's the commit id for this fix? I Would like to include the details
>>> in my pull request to Linus.
>>
>> My mistake, I misread the merge commit.  It has not been fixed in the
>> drm-misc-fixes tree or the drm-fixes tree (or Linus' tree since the
>> drm-fixes tree has been merged there) :-(
>>
>> The problem in this case is not with the format string types, but with
>> a missing argument i.e. there is another argument required by the
>> format string.  It really should be fixed in the drm-misc-fixes tree
>> and sent to Linus post haste.
>>

Agreed.

>> At least the change in the kunit-next tree will stop this happening in
>> the future.

I misread you message and asked David to send a fix.

I will send pull request with the mention of your fix up to this error
in your first message.

thanks,
-- Shuah