Hi Stephen, On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:21:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ingo, > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:35:36 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > * Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ingo, > > > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:28:38 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > tools: Copy the bitops files accessed from the kernel and check > > > > > for drift > > > > > > > > I think this has some needs some fixes for build breakage in linux-next > > > > ... > > > > > > Only if combined with a single pending change from the luto-next tree, > > > right? > > > > ... which commits come through the x86 tree, so there's no way for Linus to > > be > > exposed to that, right? > > > > That is why I sent this without mentioning the conflict. Is there any other > > complication that I missed? > > Actually, the perf tree on its own was enough to trigger the build > problem, the luto-next tree was just what initially triggered the build > failure in linux-next (I guess there is some missing dependency). > After the build failed, I started including the perf tree directly > before the tip tree and the build would fail when I merged that ...
Now that this is fixed and merged into the tip tree, I have removed the perf tree from linux-next. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
