Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4 -> conflict between s390 and driver-core tree

2019-07-08 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Christian, On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 10:59:01 +0200 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > Linus, Vasily, for your attention in the next merge window. (I would suggest > to apply > belows fixup during the merge of whatever tree is merged 2nd). > > > There is now a build conflict between the

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2019-07-06 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 08:17:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 11:46:47 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 07:44:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:34:33 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2019-07-06 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 08:17:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 11:46:47 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 07:44:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:34:33 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2019-07-06 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Greg, On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 11:46:47 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 07:44:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:34:33 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:24:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2019-07-06 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 07:44:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:34:33 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:24:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > This release produces a whole lot (over 200) of this message in

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2019-07-06 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Greg, On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:34:33 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:24:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > This release produces a whole lot (over 200) of this message in my qemu > > boot tests: > > > > [1.698497] debugfs: File 'sched' already

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2019-07-06 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:24:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > This release produces a whole lot (over 200) of this message in my qemu > boot tests: > > [1.698497] debugfs: File 'sched' already present! > > Introduced by commit > > 43e23b6c0b01 ("debugfs: log errors when

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4 -> conflict between s390 and driver-core tree

2019-07-05 Thread Christian Borntraeger
Linus, Vasily, for your attention in the next merge window. (I would suggest to apply belows fixup during the merge of whatever tree is merged 2nd). There is now a build conflict between the s390/features branch and the driver-core/driver-core-next especially between commit 92ce7e83b4e5

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2019-07-04 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:24:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > This release produces a whole lot (over 200) of this message in my qemu > boot tests: > > [1.698497] debugfs: File 'sched' already present! > > Introduced by commit > > 43e23b6c0b01 ("debugfs: log errors when

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2019-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, This release produces a whole lot (over 200) of this message in my qemu boot tests: [1.698497] debugfs: File 'sched' already present! Introduced by commit 43e23b6c0b01 ("debugfs: log errors when something goes wrong") from the driver-core tree. I assume that the error(?) was

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2019-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20190703: The pm tree gained build failures for which I applied a fix patch. The rdma tree still had its build failures so I used the version from next-20190628. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The mlx5-next tree gained a conflict against the

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2018-07-03 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20180703: The net-next tree lost its build failure. The akpm-current tree lost its build failure. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3555 3796 files changed, 134005 insertions(+), 74047 deletions(-)

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2018-07-03 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20180703: The net-next tree lost its build failure. The akpm-current tree lost its build failure. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3555 3796 files changed, 134005 insertions(+), 74047 deletions(-)

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2017-07-03 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Please do not add any v4.14 material to you linux-next included branches until after v4.13-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20170703: The sound-asoc tree lost its build failure. The spi tree lost its build failure. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 10374 9398 files

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2017-07-03 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Please do not add any v4.14 material to you linux-next included branches until after v4.13-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20170703: The sound-asoc tree lost its build failure. The spi tree lost its build failure. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 10374 9398 files

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2016-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20160701: The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a fix patch. The thermal-soc tree gained conflicts against the thermal tree. The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net tree. The lightnvm tree still had its build failure so I used the

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2016-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20160701: The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a fix patch. The thermal-soc tree gained conflicts against the thermal tree. The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net tree. The lightnvm tree still had its build failure so I used the

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Both tests for powerpc I can't test as I don't known where the configs for all yes and random are for powerpc. Cheers Nick On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Nick Krause wrote: > Here are my test logs for arm. Most of the failures from these builds > not having default configures or make one by

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Here are my test logs for arm. Most of the failures from these builds not having default configures or make one by one errors. Below are my typed results. In the next message I will be sending logs for powerpc. Results iop13xx_defconfig - Successes in my tests mackerel_defconfig - Fails in my

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Sorry my mistake some of this are wrong I will resend. Cheers Nick On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Nick Krause wrote: > Here are my test logs for arm. Most of the failures from these builds > not having default configures or make one by one errors. Below are > my typed results. > Results >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Here are my test logs for arm. Most of the failures from these builds not having default configures or make one by one errors. Below are my typed results. Results iop13xx_defconfig - Successes in my tests mackerel_defconfig - Fails in my tests nuc910_defconfig - Fails in my tests nuc950_defconfig

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Hey guys , I checking Sachin Karmat's tests and fixing compile issues with patches if need be. In my next email I am going to give a up to date log of still failing builds for arm. Cheers Nick On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote: > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 6:18 AM, J. Bruce Fields

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Sachin Kamat
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 6:18 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 01:10:58AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Sachin, >> >> On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:11 +0530 Sachin Kamat wrote: >> > >> > Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board (Exynos5420). It >> > points to a

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Sachin Kamat
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Sachin, > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:11 +0530 Sachin Kamat wrote: >> >> Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board (Exynos5420). It >> points to a merge >> commit: >> 40556a4c485d12d324f1ea196cc30f590e564237 is the first bad

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Sachin Kamat
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi Sachin, On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:11 +0530 Sachin Kamat spk.li...@gmail.com wrote: Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board (Exynos5420). It points to a merge commit:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Sachin Kamat
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 6:18 AM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote: On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 01:10:58AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Sachin, On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:11 +0530 Sachin Kamat spk.li...@gmail.com wrote: Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Hey guys , I checking Sachin Karmat's tests and fixing compile issues with patches if need be. In my next email I am going to give a up to date log of still failing builds for arm. Cheers Nick On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Sachin Kamat spk.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 6:18

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Here are my test logs for arm. Most of the failures from these builds not having default configures or make one by one errors. Below are my typed results. Results iop13xx_defconfig - Successes in my tests mackerel_defconfig - Fails in my tests nuc910_defconfig - Fails in my tests nuc950_defconfig

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Sorry my mistake some of this are wrong I will resend. Cheers Nick On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Nick Krause xerofo...@gmail.com wrote: Here are my test logs for arm. Most of the failures from these builds not having default configures or make one by one errors. Below are my typed results.

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Here are my test logs for arm. Most of the failures from these builds not having default configures or make one by one errors. Below are my typed results. In the next message I will be sending logs for powerpc. Results iop13xx_defconfig - Successes in my tests mackerel_defconfig - Fails in my

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-05 Thread Nick Krause
Both tests for powerpc I can't test as I don't known where the configs for all yes and random are for powerpc. Cheers Nick On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Nick Krause xerofo...@gmail.com wrote: Here are my test logs for arm. Most of the failures from these builds not having default configures

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-04 Thread J. Bruce Fields
On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 01:10:58AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Sachin, > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:11 +0530 Sachin Kamat wrote: > > > > Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board (Exynos5420). It > > points to a merge > > commit: > > 40556a4c485d12d324f1ea196cc30f590e564237 is

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Sachin, On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:11 +0530 Sachin Kamat wrote: > > Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board (Exynos5420). It > points to a merge > commit: > 40556a4c485d12d324f1ea196cc30f590e564237 is the first bad commit > ("Merge remote-tracking branch 'nfsd/nfsd-next'"). > > How

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-04 Thread Sachin Kamat
Hi Stephen, Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board (Exynos5420). It points to a merge commit: 40556a4c485d12d324f1ea196cc30f590e564237 is the first bad commit ("Merge remote-tracking branch 'nfsd/nfsd-next'"). How do I proceed with this? Bisect log as follows: git bisect start #

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20140703: My fixes tree contains: powerpc: Disable RELOCATABLE for COMPILE_TEST with PPC64 The net tree gained a build failure for which I reverted a commit. The usb-gadget tree gained a conflict against the usb.current tree. The staging tree still had its build

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-04 Thread J. Bruce Fields
On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 01:10:58AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Sachin, On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:11 +0530 Sachin Kamat spk.li...@gmail.com wrote: Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board (Exynos5420). It points to a merge commit:

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20140703: My fixes tree contains: powerpc: Disable RELOCATABLE for COMPILE_TEST with PPC64 The net tree gained a build failure for which I reverted a commit. The usb-gadget tree gained a conflict against the usb.current tree. The staging tree still had its build

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-04 Thread Sachin Kamat
Hi Stephen, Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board (Exynos5420). It points to a merge commit: 40556a4c485d12d324f1ea196cc30f590e564237 is the first bad commit (Merge remote-tracking branch 'nfsd/nfsd-next'). How do I proceed with this? Bisect log as follows: git bisect start #

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2014-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Sachin, On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:11 +0530 Sachin Kamat spk.li...@gmail.com wrote: Was bisecting a kernel crash on Arndale octa board (Exynos5420). It points to a merge commit: 40556a4c485d12d324f1ea196cc30f590e564237 is the first bad commit (Merge remote-tracking branch

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 10:21:09 +0200 Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> I have compared both mm/memcontrol.c files from >> next-20130703/next-20130704 - they are identical. >> >> These hunks... >> >> [ From Li Zefan ] >> @@ -6332,8 +6341,7 @@ static void

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 10:21:09 +0200 Sedat Dilek wrote: > I have compared both mm/memcontrol.c files from > next-20130703/next-20130704 - they are identical. > > These hunks... > > [ From Li Zefan ] > @@ -6332,8 +6341,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_free(struct cgroup *cont) > { > struct

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20130703: >>> >>> The net-next tree lost its build failure. >>> >>> The akpm tree gained a

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Changes since 20130703: >> >> The net-next tree lost its build failure. >> >> The akpm tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree and lost lots of >> patches that

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130703: > > The net-next tree lost its build failure. > > The akpm tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree and lost lots of > patches that turned up elsewhere. > >

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20130703: The net-next tree lost its build failure. The akpm tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree and lost lots of patches that turned up elsewhere. I have created today's linux-next

linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20130703: The net-next tree lost its build failure. The akpm tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree and lost lots of patches that turned up elsewhere. I have created today's linux-next

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130703: The net-next tree lost its build failure. The akpm tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree and lost lots of patches that turned up elsewhere.

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130703: The net-next tree lost its build failure. The akpm tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree and

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130703: The net-next tree lost its build

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 10:21:09 +0200 Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: I have compared both mm/memcontrol.c files from next-20130703/next-20130704 - they are identical. These hunks... [ From Li Zefan ] @@ -6332,8 +6341,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_free(struct cgroup *cont) {

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4

2013-07-04 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote: On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 10:21:09 +0200 Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote: I have compared both mm/memcontrol.c files from next-20130703/next-20130704 - they are identical. These hunks... [ From Li Zefan ] @@