Bug 21192

Summary:	drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c:2367: error: ‘word’ undeclared
Product:	Drivers	Reporter:	jd1008
Component:	network-wireless	Assignee:	drivers_network-wireless (drivers_network-wireless)
Status:	CLOSED INVALID
Severity:	blocking	CC:	linville
Priority:	P1
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Kernel Version:	2.6.36-git7	Subsystem:
Regression:	No	Bisected commit-id:

Description jd1008 2010-10-26 15:27:33 UTC

I downloaded 2.6.36  and the patch 2.6.36-git7
I applied the patch, copied in .config from my prior
build of 2.6.36, ran make oldconfig and ran make all.
Got this link error:

  CC [M]  drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.o
drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c: In function ‘rt2800_init_bbp’:
drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c:2367: error: ‘word’ undeclared (first use in this function)
drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c:2367: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c:2367: error: for each function it appears in.)
make[4]: *** [drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.o] Error 1
make[3]: *** [drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00] Error 2
make[2]: *** [drivers/net/wireless] Error 2
make[1]: *** [drivers/net] Error 2
make: *** [drivers] Error 2

Comment 1 John W. Linville 2010-10-26 17:15:49 UTC

I can't recreate this, and the compile error above doesn't match any version of source I have.  Perhaps the patch didn't apply correctly for some reason?

Comment 2 jd1008 2010-10-26 17:40:55 UTC

The patch applied without any errors or rejects.
Also, perhaps in your build config, you do not
include the rt2XXXX wifi drivers??
I simply added the declaration
u16 word
in the function rt2800_init_bbp
and recompiled and all went well.

Comment 3 John W. Linville 2010-10-26 17:54:41 UTC

The thing is, there are no references to "word" in rt2800_init_bbp -- at least not in any version of the source I have.

I assure you that I built the file in question.  Perhaps you could attach your .config?

Comment 4 jd1008 2010-10-26 20:47:11 UTC

Please close as user error.
I had forgotten that I had previously applied
patch bz17501-2.6.35.patch, then applied
git7 patch.
I re-did these steps, and this time I saved
stdout and stderr into a file, (my scrollback buffer
is not that big).
I checked the output file and indeed there were rejects
due to the fact that I had applied bz17501-2.6.35.patch.
I started out with a pristine 2.6.36, applied the git7
patch and all is well.

I am a bit amazed that in my goofup, the absence of the declaration
of "word" was the only compilation error. How lucky (or unlucky)
can one get?

Comment 5 John W. Linville 2010-10-27 12:46:07 UTC

Hey, it happens. :-)  The beauty of diff/patch is that it automates editing even with intervening changes in the target file.  The downside is that it can do some surprising things from time to time!