Hi all,
Changes since 20200507:
New tree: smack
My fixes tree contains:
bbefc924d0ff ("ubsan: disable UBSAN_ALIGNMENT under COMPILE_TEST")
7cb1d38f52b1 ("drm/msm: Fix undefined "rd_full" link error")
41ef83a65305 ("device_cgroup: Fix RCU list debugging warning")
d58ae1991898 ("ipmr:
Hi Andy,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:15 AM Rajat Jain wrote:
>
> > OK, NP. Just to be sure I understand,
> >
> > 1) Please let me know if I should send in a fix (it would be
> > #include/linux/module.h and also add MODULE_LICENSE() I
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:15 AM Rajat Jain wrote:
> OK, NP. Just to be sure I understand,
>
> 1) Please let me know if I should send in a fix (it would be
> #include/linux/module.h and also add MODULE_LICENSE() I believe)?
> 2) Would this be lined up for next version though?
Resend a complete
From: Andy Shevchenko
Date: Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:22 PM
To: Randy Dunlap
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing
List, Rajat Jain, Platform Driver, Rajneesh Bhardwaj, Vishwanath
Somayaji
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 11:45 PM Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > On 5/8/19 12:34
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 11:45 PM Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> On 5/8/19 12:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since 20190507:
> >
> > The ubifs tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
> >
>
> on i386 or x86_64:
Thank you for report. Can you provide what is the config option
On 5/8/19 12:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20190507:
>
> The ubifs tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
>
on i386 or x86_64:
CC drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core_plat_drv.o
../drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core_plat_drv.c:40:1: warning: data
On 5/8/19 12:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20190507:
>
> The ubifs tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
>
Hi Mauro,
Commit 6159e12e11770fb25e748af90f6c5206c1df09ee:
media: meye: allow building it with COMPILE_TEST on non-x86
causes a build failure when
Hi all,
Changes since 20190507:
The ubifs tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 8636
7735 files changed, 401006 insertions(+), 138739 deletions(-)
I have created
On 05/07/2018 10:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20180507:
>
on x86_64:
WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for TYPEC_TCPCI
Depends on [n]: STAGING [=y] && TYPEC_TCPM [=y] && I2C [=n]
Selected by [y]:
- TYPEC_RT1711H [=y] && STAGING [=y] && TYPEC_TCPM
On 05/07/2018 10:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20180507:
>
on x86_64:
WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for TYPEC_TCPCI
Depends on [n]: STAGING [=y] && TYPEC_TCPM [=y] && I2C [=n]
Selected by [y]:
- TYPEC_RT1711H [=y] && STAGING [=y] && TYPEC_TCPM
Hi all,
Changes since 20180507:
The pci tree gained a conflict against the dma-mapping tree.
The bpf-next tree gained a conflict against the s390 tree.
The drm-intel tree gained a build failure due to an interaction with
the dma-mapping tree for which I applied a merge fix patch.
Non-merge
Hi all,
Changes since 20180507:
The pci tree gained a conflict against the dma-mapping tree.
The bpf-next tree gained a conflict against the s390 tree.
The drm-intel tree gained a build failure due to an interaction with
the dma-mapping tree for which I applied a merge fix patch.
Non-merge
On 05/07/17 21:48, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
on i386:
fs/built-in.o: In function `ovl_lookup':
(.text+0x8e1d4): undefined reference to `exportfs_decode_fh'
fs/built-in.o: In function `ovl_copy_up_locked':
copy_up.c:(.text+0x93484): undefined reference to `exportfs_encode_fh'
On 05/07/17 21:48, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
on i386:
fs/built-in.o: In function `ovl_lookup':
(.text+0x8e1d4): undefined reference to `exportfs_decode_fh'
fs/built-in.o: In function `ovl_copy_up_locked':
copy_up.c:(.text+0x93484): undefined reference to `exportfs_encode_fh'
Hi all,
Please do not add any v4.13 destined material in your linux-next
included branches until after v4.12-rc1 has been released.
Changes since 20170505:
The akpm-current tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2723
2661 files changed, 96043
Hi all,
Please do not add any v4.13 destined material in your linux-next
included branches until after v4.12-rc1 has been released.
Changes since 20170505:
The akpm-current tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2723
2661 files changed, 96043
Hi all,
Changes since 20150507:
New tree : rtc
The ext4 tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20150506.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2631
2535 files changed, 117241 insertions(+), 49326 deletions(-)
Hi all,
Changes since 20150507:
New tree : rtc
The ext4 tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20150506.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2631
2535 files changed, 117241 insertions(+), 49326 deletions(-)
Mark, Vinod,
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This tree still fails (more than usual) the powerpc allyesconfig build
> and also the celleb_defconfig.
>
> Changes since 20140507:
>
> The powerpc tree still had its build failure.
>
> Non-merge commits (relative
Hi all,
This tree still fails (more than usual) the powerpc allyesconfig build
and also the celleb_defconfig.
Changes since 20140507:
The powerpc tree still had its build failure.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4132
3871 files changed, 137526 insertions(+), 86247 deletions(-)
Hi all,
This tree still fails (more than usual) the powerpc allyesconfig build
and also the celleb_defconfig.
Changes since 20140507:
The powerpc tree still had its build failure.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4132
3871 files changed, 137526 insertions(+), 86247 deletions(-)
Mark, Vinod,
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
Hi all,
This tree still fails (more than usual) the powerpc allyesconfig build
and also the celleb_defconfig.
Changes since 20140507:
The powerpc tree still had its build failure.
Non-merge
Hi,
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> [resending since mail server dropped it]
>
> On 05/13/13 12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 05/13/13 12:31, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 05/13/13 09:30, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>> On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
[resending since mail server dropped it]
On 05/13/13 12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/13/13 12:31, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/13/13 09:30, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Thu,
[resending since mail server dropped it]
On 05/13/13 12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/13/13 12:31, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 05/13/13 09:30, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On
On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
[Just forwarding to David ...]
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> [Just forwarding to David ...]
> >>
> >> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> on
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
[Just forwarding to David ...]
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap rdun...@infradead.org
wrote:
on
On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
[Just forwarding to David ...]
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap
[resending since mail server dropped it]
On 05/13/13 12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/13/13 12:31, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/13/13 09:30, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/09/13 09:50, David
On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> [Just forwarding to David ...]
>>
>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> on x86_64:
>>>
>>> when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m:
>>>
>>>
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> [Just forwarding to David ...]
>
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > on x86_64:
> >
> > when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m:
> >
> > fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock':
> >
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
[Just forwarding to David ...]
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap rdun...@infradead.org wrote:
on x86_64:
when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m:
fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock':
On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
[Just forwarding to David ...]
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap rdun...@infradead.org
wrote:
on x86_64:
when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m:
[Just forwarding to David ...]
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> on x86_64:
>
> when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m:
>
> fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock':
> file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get'
> file.c:(.text+0xa5140):
On 05/07/13 21:01, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
> branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
>
> I am receiving a (un)reasonable number of conflicts from there being
> multiple copies of some commits in various
On 05/07/13 21:01, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
> branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
>
> I am receiving a (un)reasonable number of conflicts from there being
> multiple copies of some commits in various
On 05/07/13 21:01, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
I am receiving a (un)reasonable number of conflicts from there being
multiple copies of some commits in various trees.
On 05/07/13 21:01, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
I am receiving a (un)reasonable number of conflicts from there being
multiple copies of some commits in various trees.
[Just forwarding to David ...]
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap rdun...@infradead.org wrote:
on x86_64:
when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m:
fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock':
file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get'
Hi all,
Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
I am receiving a (un)reasonable number of conflicts from there being
multiple copies of some commits in various trees. Please clean this up
and resist the temptataion to
Hi all,
Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
I am receiving a (un)reasonable number of conflicts from there being
multiple copies of some commits in various trees. Please clean this up
and resist the temptataion to
42 matches
Mail list logo
