Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tty tree

: > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 06:34:31AM -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: > > Interesting indeed. Who would have thought someone would be using the > > "unused" padding variable! > > Ugh :( > > > How would folks prefer we fix this, in the referenced patch or by

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tty tree

: > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 06:34:31AM -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: > > Interesting indeed. Who would have thought someone would be using the > > "unused" padding variable! > > Ugh :( > > > How would folks prefer we fix this, in the referenced patch or by

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tty tree

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:00 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > We should just get rid of the "unused" fields entirely. They aren't > needed here as this is not a structure that anyone really cares about. > We can move things around a bit if the padding is an issue. > > I've reverted this patch

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tty tree

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:00 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > We should just get rid of the "unused" fields entirely. They aren't > needed here as this is not a structure that anyone really cares about. > We can move things around a bit if the padding is an issue. > > I've reverted this patch

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tty tree

Interesting indeed. Who would have thought someone would be using the "unused" padding variable! How would folks prefer we fix this, in the referenced patch or by eliminating the use of "unused" in samsung.c? Steve On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:19 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > After

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tty tree

Interesting indeed. Who would have thought someone would be using the "unused" padding variable! How would folks prefer we fix this, in the referenced patch or by eliminating the use of "unused" in samsung.c? Steve On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:19 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > After