linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi all, Changes since 20190403: The sound-asoc tree lost its build failure. The mfd tree lost its build failure. The selinux tree lost its build failure. The ipmi tree lost its build failure. The staging tree gained conflicts against the spi and v4l-dvb trees. Non-merge commits (relative to

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Fri 2018-04-20 15:30:03, Daniel Micay wrote: > Well, that's not related, it's just this: > > #ifdef __GNUC__ > #if (__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3) > #error Your compiler is too buggy; it is known to miscompile kernels. > #errorKnown good compilers: 3.3, 4.x > #endif > #if GCC_VERSION

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Fri 2018-04-20 15:30:03, Daniel Micay wrote: > Well, that's not related, it's just this: > > #ifdef __GNUC__ > #if (__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3) > #error Your compiler is too buggy; it is known to miscompile kernels. > #errorKnown good compilers: 3.3, 4.x > #endif > #if GCC_VERSION

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Well, that's not related, it's just this: #ifdef __GNUC__ #if (__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3) #error Your compiler is too buggy; it is known to miscompile kernels. #errorKnown good compilers: 3.3, 4.x #endif #if GCC_VERSION >= 40800 && GCC_VERSION < 40803 #error Your compiler is too

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Well, that's not related, it's just this: #ifdef __GNUC__ #if (__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3) #error Your compiler is too buggy; it is known to miscompile kernels. #errorKnown good compilers: 3.3, 4.x #endif #if GCC_VERSION >= 40800 && GCC_VERSION < 40803 #error Your compiler is too

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Fri 2018-04-20 15:18:32, Daniel Micay wrote: > On 20 April 2018 at 15:15, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> >> Hi! Sorry I lost this email in my inbox. It seems this is specific to > >> >> a particular subset of arm architectures? (My local builds of arm all > >> >> succeed,

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Fri 2018-04-20 15:18:32, Daniel Micay wrote: > On 20 April 2018 at 15:15, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> >> Hi! Sorry I lost this email in my inbox. It seems this is specific to > >> >> a particular subset of arm architectures? (My local builds of arm all > >> >> succeed, for example.

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On 20 April 2018 at 15:15, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> >> Hi! Sorry I lost this email in my inbox. It seems this is specific to >> >> a particular subset of arm architectures? (My local builds of arm all >> >> succeed, for example. Can you send your failing config?) I'll take a

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On 20 April 2018 at 15:15, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> >> Hi! Sorry I lost this email in my inbox. It seems this is specific to >> >> a particular subset of arm architectures? (My local builds of arm all >> >> succeed, for example. Can you send your failing config?) I'll take a >> >> closer

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > >> Hi! Sorry I lost this email in my inbox. It seems this is specific to > >> a particular subset of arm architectures? (My local builds of arm all > >> succeed, for example. Can you send your failing config?) I'll take a > >> closer look on Monday if Daniel doesn't beat me to it. > > > >

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > >> Hi! Sorry I lost this email in my inbox. It seems this is specific to > >> a particular subset of arm architectures? (My local builds of arm all > >> succeed, for example. Can you send your failing config?) I'll take a > >> closer look on Monday if Daniel doesn't beat me to it. > > > >

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 08:05:17AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Sun 2018-04-15 11:00:06, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> >> Thanks. > >> >> >

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 08:05:17AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Sun 2018-04-15 11:00:06, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> >> Thanks. > >> >> > >> >> Ok, let me try to

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2018-04-15 11:00:06, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... >> >>

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2018-04-15 11:00:06, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... >> >> >> >> Hmm. And as it is

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Sun 2018-04-15 11:00:06, Kees Cook wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... > >> > >> Hmm. And as it is compile-problem in single file, it should even be > >>

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Sun 2018-04-15 11:00:06, Kees Cook wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... > >> > >> Hmm. And as it is compile-problem in single file, it should even be > >> reasonably

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Sun 2018-04-15 11:00:06, Kees Cook wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... > >> > >> Hmm. And as it is compile-problem in single file, it should even be > >>

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Sun 2018-04-15 11:00:06, Kees Cook wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... > >> > >> Hmm. And as it is compile-problem in single file, it should even be > >> reasonably

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> Thanks. >> >> Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... >> >> Hmm. And as it is compile-problem in single file, it should even be >> reasonably fast. I did not realize how easy it would be: >> >>

Re: [regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> Thanks. >> >> Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... >> >> Hmm. And as it is compile-problem in single file, it should even be >> reasonably fast. I did not realize how easy it would be: >> >> #!/bin/bash >>

[regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > Thanks. > > Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... > > Hmm. And as it is compile-problem in single file, it should even be > reasonably fast. I did not realize how easy it would be: > > #!/bin/bash > set -e > cp config.ok .config > yes '' | ARCH=arm make

[regression v4.17-rc0] Re: FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > Thanks. > > Ok, let me try to bisect it. Compile-problem should be easy... > > Hmm. And as it is compile-problem in single file, it should even be > reasonably fast. I did not realize how easy it would be: > > #!/bin/bash > set -e > cp config.ok .config > yes '' | ARCH=arm make

Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed 2018-04-04 09:50:47, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next > version. Previous versions

Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed 2018-04-04 09:50:47, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next > version. Previous versions

Re: update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:30:45 PM CEST Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Well, v4.16-rc4 is parent of v4.16-rc6, but next-20180304 is not > > > parent of next-20180307. > > > > > > But you are right that if I do bisect between -linus and -next, it > > > should work. > > > > > > Anyway,

Re: update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:30:45 PM CEST Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Well, v4.16-rc4 is parent of v4.16-rc6, but next-20180304 is not > > > parent of next-20180307. > > > > > > But you are right that if I do bisect between -linus and -next, it > > > should work. > > > > > > Anyway,

Re: update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > > Well, v4.16-rc4 is parent of v4.16-rc6, but next-20180304 is not > > parent of next-20180307. > > > > But you are right that if I do bisect between -linus and -next, it > > should work. > > > > Anyway, does s2ram work for you in -next? Are you testing 32bit? > > Hmm. I tested on T40p.

Re: update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > > Well, v4.16-rc4 is parent of v4.16-rc6, but next-20180304 is not > > parent of next-20180307. > > > > But you are right that if I do bisect between -linus and -next, it > > should work. > > > > Anyway, does s2ram work for you in -next? Are you testing 32bit? > > Hmm. I tested on T40p.

update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed 2018-04-04 10:49:05, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2018-04-04 09:58:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > >> Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > >> trees until after

update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed 2018-04-04 10:49:05, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2018-04-04 09:58:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > >> Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > >> trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been

FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed 2018-04-04 12:59:51, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Pavel Machek [180404 18:47]: > > Hi! > > > > > > When trying to build kernel for N900, I get: > > > > > > > > CC lib/timerqueue.o > > > > CC lib/vsprintf.o > > > > lib/string.c: In function 'strstr': > > > >

FORTIFY_SOURCE breaks ARM compilation in -next -- was Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed 2018-04-04 12:59:51, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Pavel Machek [180404 18:47]: > > Hi! > > > > > > When trying to build kernel for N900, I get: > > > > > > > > CC lib/timerqueue.o > > > > CC lib/vsprintf.o > > > > lib/string.c: In function 'strstr': > > > >

Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

* Pavel Machek [180404 18:47]: > Hi! > > > > When trying to build kernel for N900, I get: > > > > > > CC lib/timerqueue.o > > > CC lib/vsprintf.o > > > lib/string.c: In function 'strstr': > > > lib/string.c:478:8: error: inlining failed in call to > > >

Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

* Pavel Machek [180404 18:47]: > Hi! > > > > When trying to build kernel for N900, I get: > > > > > > CC lib/timerqueue.o > > > CC lib/vsprintf.o > > > lib/string.c: In function 'strstr': > > > lib/string.c:478:8: error: inlining failed in call to > > > always_inline

Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > > When trying to build kernel for N900, I get: > > > > CC lib/timerqueue.o > > CC lib/vsprintf.o > > lib/string.c: In function 'strstr': > > lib/string.c:478:8: error: inlining failed in call to > > always_inline 'strlen': function not inlinable > >

Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > > When trying to build kernel for N900, I get: > > > > CC lib/timerqueue.o > > CC lib/vsprintf.o > > lib/string.c: In function 'strstr': > > lib/string.c:478:8: error: inlining failed in call to > > always_inline 'strlen': function not inlinable > >

Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > > > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > > > > > Changes since 20180403: > > > > > > The vfs tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. > > > > > > Non-merge commits (relative

Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > > > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > > > > > Changes since 20180403: > > > > > > The vfs tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. > > > > > > Non-merge commits (relative

Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

* Pavel Machek [180404 07:50]: > Hi! > > > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > > > Changes since 20180403: > > > > The vfs tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. > >

Re: ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

* Pavel Machek [180404 07:50]: > Hi! > > > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > > > Changes since 20180403: > > > > The vfs tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. > > > >

Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed 2018-04-04 09:58:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > >> trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > > > On thinkpad x60, suspend

Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed 2018-04-04 09:58:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > >> trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > > > On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend

Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included >> trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next > version. Previous versions

Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included >> trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next > version. Previous versions

x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next version. Previous versions suspended/resumed fine but broke networking. Any ideas? I guess bisecting on

x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next version. Previous versions suspended/resumed fine but broke networking. Any ideas? I guess bisecting on

ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > Changes since 20180403: > > The vfs tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. > > Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 8505 > 8493

ARM compile failure in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi! > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > Changes since 20180403: > > The vfs tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. > > Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 8505 > 8493

linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi all, Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20180403: The vfs tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 8505 8493 files changed,

linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi all, Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20180403: The vfs tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 8505 8493 files changed,

linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi all, Changes since 20170403: New tree: sunxi-drm The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The keys tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20170403. The vhost tree still had its build failure, so I used the version from next-20170329. The mfd tree

linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi all, Changes since 20170403: New tree: sunxi-drm The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The keys tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20170403. The vhost tree still had its build failure, so I used the version from next-20170329. The mfd tree

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:34:08PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:26:35 +0200 > Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:34:08PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:26:35 +0200 > Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:26:35 +0200 Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > > > >Changes since 20160401: > > > > s390 allmodconfig build

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:26:35 +0200 Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > > > >Changes since 20160401: > > > > s390 allmodconfig build fails with the error: > > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >Changes since 20160401: > > s390 allmodconfig build fails with the error: > > arch/s390/crypto/ghash_s390.c:14:24: fatal error: crypt_s390.h: No > such

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:51:09PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >Changes since 20160401: > > s390 allmodconfig build fails with the error: > > arch/s390/crypto/ghash_s390.c:14:24: fatal error: crypt_s390.h: No > such

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20160401: s390 allmodconfig build fails with the error: arch/s390/crypto/ghash_s390.c:14:24: fatal error: crypt_s390.h: No such file or directory #include "crypt_s390.h" ^ build log is

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

On Monday 04 April 2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20160401: s390 allmodconfig build fails with the error: arch/s390/crypto/ghash_s390.c:14:24: fatal error: crypt_s390.h: No such file or directory #include "crypt_s390.h" ^ build log is

linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi all, Changes since 20160401: My fixes tree is empty again. The qcom tree lost its build failure. The pm tree lost its build failure. The akpm tree lost a patch that turned up elsewhere. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1950 1797 files changed, 75443 insertions(+), 50320

linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi all, Changes since 20160401: My fixes tree is empty again. The qcom tree lost its build failure. The pm tree lost its build failure. The akpm tree lost a patch that turned up elsewhere. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1950 1797 files changed, 75443 insertions(+), 50320

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 (usb/gadget/configfs)

On 04/04/13 00:22, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130403: > on x86_64, when CONFIG_BUG is not enabled: CC [M] drivers/usb/gadget/configfs.o drivers/usb/gadget/configfs.c: In function 'config_usb_cfg_unlink': drivers/usb/gadget/configfs.c:442:2: error: implicit

linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi all, Changes since 20130403: The ext4 tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20130403. The nfsd tree lost its build failure. The vfs tree lost its build failure. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the wireless tree. The wireless-next tree lost its build

linux-next: Tree for Apr 4

Hi all, Changes since 20130403: The ext4 tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20130403. The nfsd tree lost its build failure. The vfs tree lost its build failure. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the wireless tree. The wireless-next tree lost its build

Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 (usb/gadget/configfs)

On 04/04/13 00:22, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130403: on x86_64, when CONFIG_BUG is not enabled: CC [M] drivers/usb/gadget/configfs.o drivers/usb/gadget/configfs.c: In function 'config_usb_cfg_unlink': drivers/usb/gadget/configfs.c:442:2: error: implicit