Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 02:23:43PM +, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:45:10PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2016/12/26 17:18, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > >> It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. > >

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 02:23:43PM +, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:45:10PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2016/12/26 17:18, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > >> It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. > >

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:45:10PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/12/26 17:18, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > >> It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. > > I tested Kefeng's patch and works. more comments below. > > >

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:45:10PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/12/26 17:18, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > >> It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. > > I tested Kefeng's patch and works. more comments below. > > >

linux-next: stats (Was: Linux 4.10-rc1)

Hi All, On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 16:41:46 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > It's Christmas Day, and it's two weeks since the merge window opened. > Thus, the merge window is now closed. As usual, the executive friendly graph is at http://neuling.org/linux-next-size.html

linux-next: stats (Was: Linux 4.10-rc1)

Hi All, On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 16:41:46 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > It's Christmas Day, and it's two weeks since the merge window opened. > Thus, the merge window is now closed. As usual, the executive friendly graph is at http://neuling.org/linux-next-size.html :-) (No merge commits

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On 2016/12/26 17:18, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: >> It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. I tested Kefeng's patch and works. more comments below. > Better yet, split the damn thing in two and include the asm-only part.

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On 2016/12/26 17:18, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: >> It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. I tested Kefeng's patch and works. more comments below. > Better yet, split the damn thing in two and include the asm-only part.

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On 2016/12/26 17:18, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: >> It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. > Better yet, split the damn thing in two and include the asm-only part. > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On 2016/12/26 17:18, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: >> It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. > Better yet, split the damn thing in two and include the asm-only part. > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. Better yet, split the damn thing in two and include the asm-only part. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S b/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S > diff --git

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files. Better yet, split the damn thing in two and include the asm-only part. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S b/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S > diff --git

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 04:38:13PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > ./include/asm-generic/atomic-long.h:23: Error: unknown mnemonic `typedef' -- > `typedef atomic64_t atomic_long_t' *blink* OK, I see what has happened here - it's "arm64: Factor out PAN enabling/disabling into separate uaccess_*

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 04:38:13PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > ./include/asm-generic/atomic-long.h:23: Error: unknown mnemonic `typedef' -- > `typedef atomic64_t atomic_long_t' *blink* OK, I see what has happened here - it's "arm64: Factor out PAN enabling/disabling into separate uaccess_*

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On 2016/12/26 16:38, Hanjun Guo wrote: > Hi Linus, > > On 2016/12/26 8:41, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> It's Christmas Day, and it's two weeks since the merge window opened. >> Thus, the merge window is now closed. >> >> I did a few final pulls today, but I also rejected a couple of pulls >> that

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

On 2016/12/26 16:38, Hanjun Guo wrote: > Hi Linus, > > On 2016/12/26 8:41, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> It's Christmas Day, and it's two weeks since the merge window opened. >> Thus, the merge window is now closed. >> >> I did a few final pulls today, but I also rejected a couple of pulls >> that

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

Hi Linus, On 2016/12/26 8:41, Linus Torvalds wrote: > It's Christmas Day, and it's two weeks since the merge window opened. > Thus, the merge window is now closed. > > I did a few final pulls today, but I also rejected a couple of pulls > that came in late in the window and looked dodgy. You know

Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

Hi Linus, On 2016/12/26 8:41, Linus Torvalds wrote: > It's Christmas Day, and it's two weeks since the merge window opened. > Thus, the merge window is now closed. > > I did a few final pulls today, but I also rejected a couple of pulls > that came in late in the window and looked dodgy. You know

Linux 4.10-rc1

It's Christmas Day, and it's two weeks since the merge window opened. Thus, the merge window is now closed. I did a few final pulls today, but I also rejected a couple of pulls that came in late in the window and looked dodgy. You know who you are. On the whole, this wasn't all that big a

Linux 4.10-rc1

It's Christmas Day, and it's two weeks since the merge window opened. Thus, the merge window is now closed. I did a few final pulls today, but I also rejected a couple of pulls that came in late in the window and looked dodgy. You know who you are. On the whole, this wasn't all that big a