linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, Changes since 20210211: The powerpc tree lost its build failure. The btrfs tree gained a conflict against the fscache tree. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The device-mapper tree lost its build failure. The spi tree gained a conflict against the powerpc

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (chrome/wilco_ec/)

On 2/13/19 9:26 AM, Nick Crews wrote: > Randy, > > No, I didn't test it, I'm sorry, of course I should done that. > Sorry for the formatting too, I'm new to this and wasn't sure what > tool to use. The following version of the patch was made with > "git format-patch" and now I'm replying in

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (chrome/wilco_ec/)

Randy, No, I didn't test it, I'm sorry, of course I should done that. Sorry for the formatting too, I'm new to this and wasn't sure what tool to use. The following version of the patch was made with "git format-patch" and now I'm replying in plaintext, it hopefully is better. >From

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (chrome/wilco_ec/)

On 2/12/19 3:49 PM, Nick Crews wrote: > OK, here is the patch to fix this problem. We had the dependency backwards. > > Should I re-send out the entire patch series to the LKML with this fix in it? > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig b/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig > index

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (chrome/wilco_ec/)

On 2/12/19 3:49 PM, Nick Crews wrote: > OK, here is the patch to fix this problem. We had the dependency backwards. > > Should I re-send out the entire patch series to the LKML with this fix in it? > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig b/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig > index

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (chrome/wilco_ec/)

On 2/12/19 3:26 PM, Nick Crews wrote: > Hi Randy, > > This looks like we have a bad dependency structure in our Kconfig. I'll > figure it out, and then where should I send the patch? AFAICT, all drivers/platform/chrome/ patches go to its maintainers (& to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org): CHROME

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (chrome/wilco_ec/)

On 2/11/19 10:50 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20190211: > on i386 or x86_64: ld: drivers/platform/chrome/wilco_ec/core.o: in function `wilco_ec_remove': core.c:(.text+0x46): undefined reference to `cros_ec_lpc_mec_destroy' ld:

linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, Changes since 20190211: The tegra tree gained a conflict against the imx-mxs tree. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The drm-misc tree lost its build failure. The rtc tree lost its build failure. The xarray tree gained a build failure for which I added a merge

linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, Changes since 20180209: The btrfs-kdave tree lost its build failure. The tip tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 422 451 files changed, 15667 insertions(+), 3551 deletions(-)

linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, Changes since 20180209: The btrfs-kdave tree lost its build failure. The tip tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 422 451 files changed, 15667 insertions(+), 3551 deletions(-)

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Saturday 13 February 2016 09:20 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 06:57:24AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: I think Borislav's patch should fix this. Yeah, guys, can you give it a try: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160210145116.gf23...@pd.tnic Its late night in our time so

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 06:57:24AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I think Borislav's patch should fix this. Yeah, guys, can you give it a try: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160210145116.gf23...@pd.tnic Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:32:42AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:20:35PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Changes since 20160211: >> >> since last few days with gcc-4.6.3, x86_64 and i386

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:32:42AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:20:35PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Changes since 20160211: >> >> since last few days with

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 06:57:24AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I think Borislav's patch should fix this. Yeah, guys, can you give it a try: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160210145116.gf23...@pd.tnic Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Saturday 13 February 2016 09:20 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 06:57:24AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: I think Borislav's patch should fix this. Yeah, guys, can you give it a try: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160210145116.gf23...@pd.tnic Its late night in our time so

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:32:42AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:20:35PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160211: > > since last few days with gcc-4.6.3, x86_64 and i386 defconfig and > allmodconfig builds are failing with the error:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:20:35PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160211: arm lpc18xx_defconfig build fails with the error: ./arch/arm/kernel/vmlinux.lds:702: undefined symbol `SECTION_SHIFT' referenced in expression bisect leads to: 64ac2e74f0b2 ("ARM: 8502/1: mm:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:20:35PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160211: arm lpc18xx_defconfig build fails with the error: ./arch/arm/kernel/vmlinux.lds:702: undefined symbol `SECTION_SHIFT' referenced in expression bisect leads to: 64ac2e74f0b2 ("ARM: 8502/1: mm:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:32:42AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:20:35PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160211: > > since last few days with gcc-4.6.3, x86_64 and i386 defconfig and > allmodconfig builds are failing with the error:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:20:35PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160211: since last few days with gcc-4.6.3, x86_64 and i386 defconfig and allmodconfig builds are failing with the error: "arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h:26:18: error: memory input 0 is not directly

linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, Changes since 20160211: The kvm-arm tree gained a conflict against the arm64 tree. The aio tree still had a build failure so I used the version from next-20160111. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4277 3754 files changed, 149171 insertions(+), 67859 deletions(-)

linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, Changes since 20160211: The kvm-arm tree gained a conflict against the arm64 tree. The aio tree still had a build failure so I used the version from next-20160111. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4277 3754 files changed, 149171 insertions(+), 67859 deletions(-)

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:20:35PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160211: since last few days with gcc-4.6.3, x86_64 and i386 defconfig and allmodconfig builds are failing with the error: "arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h:26:18: error: memory input 0 is not directly

linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, Please do not add any material destined for v3.21 to your linux-next included trees until after v3.20-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20150211: The net-next tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The akpm-current tree gained a conflict against the modules tree. Non-merge

linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, Please do not add any material destined for v3.21 to your linux-next included trees until after v3.20-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20150211: The net-next tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The akpm-current tree gained a conflict against the modules tree. Non-merge

linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, If you see failures in building this tree due to missing declarations of k..alloc/free, then it may be caused by commit 2bd59d48ebfb ("cgroup: convert to kernfs"). Please send Tejun Heo a patch adding an inclusion of linux/slab.h to the appropriate file(s). This tree fails (more than

linux-next: Tree for Feb 12

Hi all, If you see failures in building this tree due to missing declarations of k..alloc/free, then it may be caused by commit 2bd59d48ebfb (cgroup: convert to kernfs). Please send Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org a patch adding an inclusion of linux/slab.h to the appropriate file(s). This tree fails

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (drm_pci.c)

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:06:00AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 02/11/13 21:09, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20130211: > > > > > when CONFIG_PCI is not enabled (on x86_64): > > CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.o > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c: In function

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 [ WARNING: at drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c:427 flush_to_ldisc | tty is NULL ]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130211: > > The acpi tree lost its build failure. > > The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. > > The arm-soc tree gained conflicts against the usb and metag trees. > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (drm_pci.c)

On 02/11/13 21:09, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130211: > when CONFIG_PCI is not enabled (on x86_64): CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.o drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c: In function 'drm_pcie_get_speed_cap_mask': drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c:485:2: error: implicit declaration

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (drm_pci.c)

On 02/11/13 21:09, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130211: when CONFIG_PCI is not enabled (on x86_64): CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.o drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c: In function 'drm_pcie_get_speed_cap_mask': drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c:485:2: error: implicit declaration of

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 [ WARNING: at drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c:427 flush_to_ldisc | tty is NULL ]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130211: The acpi tree lost its build failure. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The arm-soc tree gained conflicts against the usb and metag trees.

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 12 (drm_pci.c)

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:06:00AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 02/11/13 21:09, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130211: when CONFIG_PCI is not enabled (on x86_64): CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.o drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c: In function