Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2

On 03/05/2019 00:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Thu, 2 May 2019 22:09:49 +0200 Daniel Lezcano > wrote: >> >> Yes, I picked the patch and it was merged it via the tip tree [1] as >> requested by Marc Zyngier [2] and notified [3]. >> >> In any case, this patch should have go

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi Daniel, On Thu, 2 May 2019 22:09:49 +0200 Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > Yes, I picked the patch and it was merged it via the tip tree [1] as > requested by Marc Zyngier [2] and notified [3]. > > In any case, this patch should have go through my tree initially, so if > it is found somewhere else

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2

On 02/05/2019 21:08, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 09:00:58PM +0200, Anders Roxell wrote: >> On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 12:10, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20190501: >>> >>> The kbuild tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. >>> >>> The f2fs

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 09:00:58PM +0200, Anders Roxell wrote: > On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 12:10, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20190501: > > > > The kbuild tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. > > > > The f2fs tree gained a build failure for which I applied a

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2

On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 12:10, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > Changes since 20190501: > > The kbuild tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. > > The f2fs tree gained a build failure for which I applied a patch. > > The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. > > The pidfd

linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi all, Changes since 20190501: The kbuild tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The f2fs tree gained a build failure for which I applied a patch. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The pidfd tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree. The akpm-current tree

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (objtool bug!)

On 05/02/2018 02:06 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:59:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/02/2018 08:43 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, >

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (objtool bug!)

On 05/02/2018 02:06 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:59:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/02/2018 08:43 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, >

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (objtool bug!)

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:59:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/02/2018 08:43 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Changes since 20180501: > >>> > >> > >> on

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (objtool bug!)

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:59:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/02/2018 08:43 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Changes since 20180501: > >>> > >> > >> on

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (objtool bug!)

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20180501: > > > > on x86_64 randconfig: > > CC fs/cifs/smbencrypt.o > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.o: warning: objtool:

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (objtool bug!)

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20180501: > > > > on x86_64 randconfig: > > CC fs/cifs/smbencrypt.o > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.o: warning: objtool:

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (objtool bug!)

On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20180501: > on x86_64 randconfig: CC fs/cifs/smbencrypt.o drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.o: warning: objtool: return_hosed_msg()+0x0: infinite recursion (objtool bug!) drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.o: warning:

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (objtool bug!)

On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20180501: > on x86_64 randconfig: CC fs/cifs/smbencrypt.o drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.o: warning: objtool: return_hosed_msg()+0x0: infinite recursion (objtool bug!) drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.o: warning:

linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi all, Changes since 20180501: Added tree: pcmcia Removed tree: syscalls (finished with) The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The bpf-next tree gained a conflict against the bpf tree. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3508 3343 files changed, 134142

linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi all, Changes since 20180501: Added tree: pcmcia Removed tree: syscalls (finished with) The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The bpf-next tree gained a conflict against the bpf tree. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3508 3343 files changed, 134142

Re: [Xen-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 2 (xen: events_base.c)

On 05/02/2017 11:34 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/01/17 23:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> 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 20170501: >> > on x86_64: > >

Re: [Xen-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 2 (xen: events_base.c)

On 05/02/2017 11:34 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/01/17 23:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> 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 20170501: >> > on x86_64: > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (xen: events_base.c)

On 05/01/17 23:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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 20170501: > on x86_64: drivers/built-in.o: In function `set_affinity_irq':

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (xen: events_base.c)

On 05/01/17 23:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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 20170501: > on x86_64: drivers/built-in.o: In function `set_affinity_irq':

linux-next: Tree for May 2

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 20170501: The tip tree gained a build failure due to an interaction with Linus' tree for which I applied a merge fix patch. The drivers-x86 tree

linux-next: Tree for May 2

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 20170501: The tip tree gained a build failure due to an interaction with Linus' tree for which I applied a merge fix patch. The drivers-x86 tree

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

Hi all, On Mon, 2 May 2016 22:07:45 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > This comes from a bad automatic merge resolution between commit > > d101a125954e ("fs: add file_dentry()") > > from Linus' tree (introduced before v4.5-rc3) and commit

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

Hi all, On Mon, 2 May 2016 22:07:45 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > This comes from a bad automatic merge resolution between commit > > d101a125954e ("fs: add file_dentry()") > > from Linus' tree (introduced before v4.5-rc3) and commit

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

On (05/02/16 22:07), Stephen Rothwell wrote: [..] > > The issue is that 2 macros have the same value: > > > > #define DCACHE_OP_REAL 0x0800 > > > > #define DCACHE_PAR_LOOKUP 0x0800 /* being looked up > > (with parent locked shared) */ > > > > Verified with

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

On (05/02/16 22:07), Stephen Rothwell wrote: [..] > > The issue is that 2 macros have the same value: > > > > #define DCACHE_OP_REAL 0x0800 > > > > #define DCACHE_PAR_LOOKUP 0x0800 /* being looked up > > (with parent locked shared) */ > > > > Verified with

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

Hi Mateusz, On Mon, 2 May 2016 12:33:54 +0200 Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:15:24PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (05/02/16 18:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Changes since 20160429 > > > > Hello, > > > > [

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

Hi Mateusz, On Mon, 2 May 2016 12:33:54 +0200 Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:15:24PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (05/02/16 18:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Changes since 20160429 > > > > Hello, > > > > [0.368791] [

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:15:24PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (05/02/16 18:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160429 > > Hello, > > [0.368791] [ cut here ] > [0.368850] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at fs/dcache.c:1688

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:15:24PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (05/02/16 18:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160429 > > Hello, > > [0.368791] [ cut here ] > [0.368850] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at fs/dcache.c:1688

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

On (05/02/16 18:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160429 Hello, [0.368791] [ cut here ] [0.368850] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at fs/dcache.c:1688 d_set_d_op+0x5e/0xcc [0.368911] Modules linked in: [0.369002] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm:

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 [WARNING: at fs/dcache.c]

On (05/02/16 18:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160429 Hello, [0.368791] [ cut here ] [0.368850] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at fs/dcache.c:1688 d_set_d_op+0x5e/0xcc [0.368911] Modules linked in: [0.369002] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm:

linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi all, Changes since 20160429: The powerpc tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The vfs tree gained conflicts against Linus'and the overlayfs trees and a build failure for which I applied a merge fix patch. The tpmdd tree still had its build failure for which I added a fix patch. The

linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi all, Changes since 20160429: The powerpc tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The vfs tree gained conflicts against Linus'and the overlayfs trees and a build failure for which I applied a merge fix patch. The tpmdd tree still had its build failure for which I added a fix patch. The

linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi all, This tree still fails (more than usual) the powerpc allyesconfig build. Changes since 20140501: The powerpc tree still had its build failure. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3658 3376 files changed, 122496 insertions(+), 79513 deletions(-)

linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi all, This tree still fails (more than usual) the powerpc allyesconfig build. Changes since 20140501: The powerpc tree still had its build failure. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3658 3376 files changed, 122496 insertions(+), 79513 deletions(-)

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (platform/x86/samsung-laptop)

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:19:14AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/02/13 14:26, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 05/02/13 00:35, 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. > >> >

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (platform/x86/samsung-laptop)

On 05/02/13 14:26, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/02/13 00:35, 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. >> >> Changes since 20130501: >> > > > when CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO=m and

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (platform/x86/samsung-laptop)

On 05/02/13 14:26, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 05/02/13 00:35, 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. Changes since 20130501: when CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO=m and CONFIG_SAMSUNG_LAPTOP=y:

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (platform/x86/samsung-laptop)

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:19:14AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 05/02/13 14:26, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 05/02/13 00:35, 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. Changes since

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (platform/x86/toshiba_acpi)

On 05/02/13 00:35, 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. > > Changes since 20130501: > when TOSHIBA_ACPI=y and SERIO_I8042=m: drivers/built-in.o: In function

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (platform/x86/samsung-laptop)

On 05/02/13 00:35, 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. > > Changes since 20130501: > when CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO=m and CONFIG_SAMSUNG_LAPTOP=y: drivers/built-in.o: In function

linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi all, Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released. Changes since 20130501: The vfs tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree. The akpm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree and lost a lot of patches that turned up

linux-next: Tree for May 2

Hi all, Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released. Changes since 20130501: The vfs tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree. The akpm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree and lost a lot of patches that turned up

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (platform/x86/samsung-laptop)

On 05/02/13 00:35, 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. Changes since 20130501: when CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO=m and CONFIG_SAMSUNG_LAPTOP=y: drivers/built-in.o: In function

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 (platform/x86/toshiba_acpi)

On 05/02/13 00:35, 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. Changes since 20130501: when TOSHIBA_ACPI=y and SERIO_I8042=m: drivers/built-in.o: In function `toshiba_acpi_remove':