Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 2 (drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/cio2-bridge.c)

On 2/2/21 1:32 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20210201: on i386: # CONFIG_ACPI is not set ../drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/cio2-bridge.c: In function ‘cio2_bridge_read_acpi_buffer’: ../drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/cio2-bridge.c:46:36: error: dereferencing pointer to

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Changes since 20210201: New tree: cel-fixes The arm-soc tree gained conflicts against the arm tree. The drm-misc tree still had ts build failure so I used the version from next-20210129. The block tree gained a conflict and semantic conflicts against the btrfs tree. The tip tree

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Please do not add any v4.17 material to your linux-next included branches until after v4.16-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20180201: The pci tree lost its build failure. The integrity tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The kvm tree gained a conflict against the tip

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Please do not add any v4.17 material to your linux-next included branches until after v4.16-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20180201: The pci tree lost its build failure. The integrity tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The kvm tree gained a conflict against the tip

Re: [dm-devel] linux-next: Tree for Feb 2 (drivers/md/dm.c)

On 02/02/2017 10:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > ec8013bedd ("dm: do not forward ioctls from logical volumes to the > underlying device"), > > The trivial fix would be to add a select of the SCSI_REQUEST symbol > to dm, but my gut feeling teels me the call is simply wrong, and > should be

Re: [dm-devel] linux-next: Tree for Feb 2 (drivers/md/dm.c)

On 02/02/2017 10:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > ec8013bedd ("dm: do not forward ioctls from logical volumes to the > underlying device"), > > The trivial fix would be to add a select of the SCSI_REQUEST symbol > to dm, but my gut feeling teels me the call is simply wrong, and > should be

Re: [dm-devel] linux-next: Tree for Feb 2 (drivers/md/dm.c)

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:29:16PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > Are you trying to say that this happens using a certain .config? > > Also, not sure why you didn't cc Christoph (or Jens) seeing as these > changes are _not_ staged in linux-next by linux-dm.git. No changes to dm caused this, it was

Re: [dm-devel] linux-next: Tree for Feb 2 (drivers/md/dm.c)

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:29:16PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > Are you trying to say that this happens using a certain .config? > > Also, not sure why you didn't cc Christoph (or Jens) seeing as these > changes are _not_ staged in linux-next by linux-dm.git. No changes to dm caused this, it was

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 2 (drivers/md/dm.c)

On Thu, Feb 02 2017 at 12:58pm -0500, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 02/01/17 23:21, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20170201: > > > > on x86_64: > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `dm_blk_ioctl': > dm.c:(.text+0x1a5121): undefined reference to

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 2 (drivers/md/dm.c)

On Thu, Feb 02 2017 at 12:58pm -0500, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 02/01/17 23:21, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20170201: > > > > on x86_64: > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `dm_blk_ioctl': > dm.c:(.text+0x1a5121): undefined reference to `scsi_verify_blk_ioctl'

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 2 (drivers/md/dm.c)

On 02/01/17 23:21, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20170201: > on x86_64: drivers/built-in.o: In function `dm_blk_ioctl': dm.c:(.text+0x1a5121): undefined reference to `scsi_verify_blk_ioctl' # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_BSG is not set # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_BSGLIB is not set -- ~Randy

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 2 (drivers/md/dm.c)

On 02/01/17 23:21, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20170201: > on x86_64: drivers/built-in.o: In function `dm_blk_ioctl': dm.c:(.text+0x1a5121): undefined reference to `scsi_verify_blk_ioctl' # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_BSG is not set # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_BSGLIB is not set -- ~Randy

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Changes since 20170201: Dropped tree: vfs-miklos (build failure and out of date) The vfs-miklos tree still had its build failure, so I just dropped it again for today. The v4l-dvb tree still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20170130. The net-next tree gained a

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Changes since 20170201: Dropped tree: vfs-miklos (build failure and out of date) The vfs-miklos tree still had its build failure, so I just dropped it again for today. The v4l-dvb tree still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20170130. The net-next tree gained a

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Changes since 20160201: The btrfs-kdave gained a conflict against Linus' tree and a build failure so I used the version from next-20160201. The rcu tree lost its build failure. The gpio tree still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20160128. The aio tree still had a

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Changes since 20160201: The btrfs-kdave gained a conflict against Linus' tree and a build failure so I used the version from next-20160201. The rcu tree lost its build failure. The gpio tree still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20160128. The aio tree still had a

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Changes since 20150130: The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net tree. The spi tree lost its build failure. The kvm tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree. The target-updates tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The akpm-current tree gained a conflict against the

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Changes since 20150130: The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net tree. The spi tree lost its build failure. The kvm tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree. The target-updates tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The akpm-current tree gained a conflict against the

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Changes since 20130128: The powerpc tree still had a build failure. The nfsd tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20130128. The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net tree. The pm tree gained a conflict against the pci tree. The battery tree gained a

linux-next: Tree for Feb 2

Hi all, Changes since 20130128: The powerpc tree still had a build failure. The nfsd tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20130128. The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net tree. The pm tree gained a conflict against the pci tree. The battery tree gained a