On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 04:36:13PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> ERROR: modpost: "rcu_read_lock_longwait_held" [kernel/rcu/rcutorture.ko]
> undefined!
> ERROR: modpost:
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
ERROR: modpost: "rcu_read_lock_longwait_held" [kernel/rcu/rcutorture.ko]
undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "rcu_read_unlock_longwait" [kernel/rcu/rcutorture.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 11:37:36AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> arch/arm/mach-imx/cpuidle-imx6q.c: In function 'imx6q_enter_wait':
> arch/arm/mach-imx/cpuidle-imx6q.c:32:7:
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
arch/arm/mach-imx/cpuidle-imx6q.c: In function 'imx6q_enter_wait':
arch/arm/mach-imx/cpuidle-imx6q.c:32:7: error: implicit declaration of function
'need_resched'; did you mean
Hi Paul,
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 20:48:41 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 08:39:20AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:20:32 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Does the following patch fix things? (Sigh. It won't
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 08:39:20AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:20:32 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >
> > Does the following patch fix things? (Sigh. It won't apply on the
> > rcu/next that you used. Or even on this moment's dev branch. I will
>
Hi Paul,
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:20:32 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> Does the following patch fix things? (Sigh. It won't apply on the
> rcu/next that you used. Or even on this moment's dev branch. I will
> fold it in with attribution and update. But just to show you what my
> thought
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:25:26PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (sparc defconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> mm/slab_common.o: In function `kmem_last_alloc':
> slab_common.c:(.text+0xc4): undefined reference to
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (sparc defconfig)
failed like this:
mm/slab_common.o: In function `kmem_last_alloc':
slab_common.c:(.text+0xc4): undefined reference to `kmem_cache_last_alloc'
Caused by commit
f7c3fb4fc476 ("mm: Add kmem_last_alloc() to return
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:01:45 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:19:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > In file included from
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:19:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from kernel/rcu/update.c:578:
> kernel/rcu/tasks.h:601:20: error: static declaration of
>
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
In file included from kernel/rcu/update.c:578:
kernel/rcu/tasks.h:601:20: error: static declaration of
'show_rcu_tasks_classic_gp_kthread' follows non-static declaration
601 | static
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 03:38:30PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> ERROR: modpost: "resched_cpu" [kernel/scftorture.ko] undefined!
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 20c881d0592c
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
ERROR: modpost: "resched_cpu" [kernel/scftorture.ko] undefined!
Caused by commit
20c881d0592c ("scftorture: Add an alternative IPI vector")
I have reverted that commit for today.
--
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:43:54AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> In file included from include/linux/kernel.h:15,
> from kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c:13:
>
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
In file included from include/linux/kernel.h:15,
from kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c:13:
kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c: In function 'rcu_scale_writer':
kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c:430:6: error:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:57:53PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> kernel/rcu/tree.c: In function 'rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter':
> kernel/rcu/tree.c:251:8: error: implicit declaration
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
kernel/rcu/tree.c: In function 'rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter':
kernel/rcu/tree.c:251:8: error: implicit declaration of function
'arch_atomic_add_return'; did you mean 'atomic_add_return'?
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 09:33:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 07:05:01PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powercp
> > allyesconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > ld:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 07:05:01PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powercp
> allyesconfig) failed like this:
>
> ld: kernel/rcu/refperf.o:(.discard+0x0): multiple definition of
> `__pcpu_unique_srcu_ctl_perf_srcu_data';
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powercp
allyesconfig) failed like this:
ld: kernel/rcu/refperf.o:(.discard+0x0): multiple definition of
`__pcpu_unique_srcu_ctl_perf_srcu_data'; kernel/rcu/rcuperf.o:(.discard+0x0):
first defined here
Caused by commit
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 05:57:32PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc allnoconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> drivers/base/core.c: In function 'device_links_read_lock_held':
> drivers/base/core.c:106:9: error: implicit
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 03:25:11PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:19:34 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >
> > Huh. "It has been building fine for me." I added
> >
> > #include
> > #include
> >
> > to include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h, which
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc allnoconfig)
failed like this:
drivers/base/core.c: In function 'device_links_read_lock_held':
drivers/base/core.c:106:9: error: implicit declaration of function
'lock_is_held'; did you mean 'lockref_get'?
Hi Paul,
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:19:34 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> Huh. "It has been building fine for me." I added
>
> #include
> #include
>
> to include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h, which hopefully fixes it at your end.
That did not work as I got a lot of errors from
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:12:36PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c: In function 'xen_pv_play_dead':
> arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c:439:2: error: implicit declaration of
Hi all,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c: In function 'xen_pv_play_dead':
arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c:439:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick_protected'; did you mean
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 02:50:45PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> ERROR: "rcu_cpu_stall_suppress" [kernel/rcu/rcutorture.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: "rcu_cpu_stall_suppress"
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 02:50:45PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> ERROR: "rcu_cpu_stall_suppress" [kernel/rcu/rcutorture.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: "rcu_cpu_stall_suppress"
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
ERROR: "rcu_cpu_stall_suppress" [kernel/rcu/rcutorture.ko] undefined!
ERROR: "rcu_cpu_stall_suppress" [kernel/rcu/rcuperf.ko] undefined!
Caused by commit
909bd6e3d9e7 ("rcu: Suppress RCU CPU
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
ERROR: "rcu_cpu_stall_suppress" [kernel/rcu/rcutorture.ko] undefined!
ERROR: "rcu_cpu_stall_suppress" [kernel/rcu/rcuperf.ko] undefined!
Caused by commit
909bd6e3d9e7 ("rcu: Suppress RCU CPU
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:25:48PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:14:0:
> include/linux/sched.h: In function
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:25:48PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:14:0:
> include/linux/sched.h: In function
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
In file included from arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:14:0:
include/linux/sched.h: In function 'membarrier_sched_out':
include/linux/sched.h:1680:3: error: implicit declaration of function
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
In file included from arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:14:0:
include/linux/sched.h: In function 'membarrier_sched_out':
include/linux/sched.h:1680:3: error: implicit declaration of function
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 04:41:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks like I
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 04:41:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks like I
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks like
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks like
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and
> > than put an
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and
> > than put an
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and
> > than put an
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and
> > than put an
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and
> than put an smp_mb__after_spinlock() between the lock and the unlock.
>
> Peter, any
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and
> than put an smp_mb__after_spinlock() between the lock and the unlock.
>
> Peter, any
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> kernel/sched/core.c: In function 'do_task_dead':
> kernel/sched/core.c:3385:2: error: implicit declaration of
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> kernel/sched/core.c: In function 'do_task_dead':
> kernel/sched/core.c:3385:2: error: implicit declaration of
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
kernel/sched/core.c: In function 'do_task_dead':
kernel/sched/core.c:3385:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'smp_mb__before_spinlock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
kernel/sched/core.c: In function 'do_task_dead':
kernel/sched/core.c:3385:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'smp_mb__before_spinlock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:10:26PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:02:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (bfin
> >>
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:10:26PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:02:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (bfin
> >> BF526-EZBRD_defconfig and several other
"Paul E. McKenney" writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:02:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (bfin
>> BF526-EZBRD_defconfig and several other bfin configs) failed like this:
>>
>> In file
"Paul E. McKenney" writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:02:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (bfin
>> BF526-EZBRD_defconfig and several other bfin configs) failed like this:
>>
>> In file included from
Hi Joe,
On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:20:25 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 19:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 06:54:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi Paul,
>
Hi Joe,
On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:20:25 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 19:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 06:54:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > >
On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 19:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 06:54:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:15:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > > >
On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 19:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 06:54:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:15:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 06:54:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:15:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyone see any other options?
>
> My
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 06:54:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:15:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyone see any other options?
>
> My preferred option would be
On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:15:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> >
> > Anyone see any other options?
My preferred option would be removing pr_fmt
and adding a couple new macros.
---
On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:15:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> >
> > Anyone see any other options?
My preferred option would be removing pr_fmt
and adding a couple new macros.
---
arch/blackfin/kernel/module.c |
Hi Paul,
On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:15:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> Anyone see any other options?
I will add the following to linux-next today. If the Blackfin guys
agree (or come up with something better), you should get their acks and
then add it to your
Hi Paul,
On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:15:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> Anyone see any other options?
I will add the following to linux-next today. If the Blackfin guys
agree (or come up with something better), you should get their acks and
then add it to your tree.
From: Stephen Rothwell
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:02:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (bfin
> BF526-EZBRD_defconfig and several other bfin configs) failed like this:
>
> In file included from include/linux/srcu.h:60:0,
> from
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:02:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (bfin
> BF526-EZBRD_defconfig and several other bfin configs) failed like this:
>
> In file included from include/linux/srcu.h:60:0,
> from
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (bfin
BF526-EZBRD_defconfig and several other bfin configs) failed like this:
In file included from include/linux/srcu.h:60:0,
from include/linux/notifier.h:15,
from include/linux/memory_hotplug.h:6,
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (bfin
BF526-EZBRD_defconfig and several other bfin configs) failed like this:
In file included from include/linux/srcu.h:60:0,
from include/linux/notifier.h:15,
from include/linux/memory_hotplug.h:6,
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:36:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> [Also reported by Michael elsewhere]
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> pseries_le_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S: Assembler messages:
>
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:36:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> [Also reported by Michael elsewhere]
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> pseries_le_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S: Assembler messages:
>
Hi Paul,
[Also reported by Michael elsewhere]
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
pseries_le_defconfig) failed like this:
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S: Assembler messages:
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S:587: Error: operand out of range
Hi Paul,
[Also reported by Michael elsewhere]
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
pseries_le_defconfig) failed like this:
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S: Assembler messages:
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S:587: Error: operand out of range
Hi Paul,
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:06:20 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> Or at least broken in a more subtle and creative way. ;-)
What I live for :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi Paul,
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:06:20 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> Or at least broken in a more subtle and creative way. ;-)
What I live for :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:50:16PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c: In function 'rcu_torture_stats_print':
> kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:1369:3: error: implicit
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:50:16PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c: In function 'rcu_torture_stats_print':
> kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:1369:3: error: implicit
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c: In function 'rcu_torture_stats_print':
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:1369:3: error: implicit declaration of function
'srcutorture_get_gp_data'
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c: In function 'rcu_torture_stats_print':
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:1369:3: error: implicit declaration of function
'srcutorture_get_gp_data'
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:43:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:37:48 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I chickened out
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:43:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:37:48 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I chickened out on that commit for this merge window, so it will
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 11:13:38AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:45PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > failed like this:
> >
> > In file included from
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 11:13:38AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:45PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > failed like this:
> >
> > In file included from
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:45PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> In file included from include/linux/resource_ext.h:19:0,
> from include/linux/pci.h:32,
>
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:45PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> In file included from include/linux/resource_ext.h:19:0,
> from include/linux/pci.h:32,
>
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:43:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:37:48 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I chickened out
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:43:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:37:48 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I chickened out on that commit for this merge window, so it will
Hi Paul,
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:43:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:37:48 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >
> > I chickened out on that commit for this merge window, so it will come
> > back at -rc1. But I will
Hi Paul,
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:43:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:37:48 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >
> > I chickened out on that commit for this merge window, so it will come
> > back at -rc1. But I will cover that when I rebase to -rc1.
>
> OK,
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
In file included from include/linux/resource_ext.h:19:0,
from include/linux/pci.h:32,
from include/drm/drmP.h:50,
from
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
In file included from include/linux/resource_ext.h:19:0,
from include/linux/pci.h:32,
from include/drm/drmP.h:50,
from
Hi Paul,
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:37:48 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> I chickened out on that commit for this merge window, so it will come
> back at -rc1. But I will cover that when I rebase to -rc1.
OK, thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi Paul,
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:37:48 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> I chickened out on that commit for this merge window, so it will come
> back at -rc1. But I will cover that when I rebase to -rc1.
OK, thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 01:21:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:54:37 -0800 Paul McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > After merging
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 01:21:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:54:37 -0800 Paul McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:54:37 -0800 Paul McKenney wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > failed like this:
> >
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:54:37 -0800 Paul McKenney wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > failed like this:
> >
> > net/smc/af_smc.c:102:16: error:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> net/smc/af_smc.c:102:16: error: 'SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU' undeclared here (not in
> a function)
>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> net/smc/af_smc.c:102:16: error: 'SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU' undeclared here (not in
> a function)
> .slab_flags =
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
net/smc/af_smc.c:102:16: error: 'SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU' undeclared here (not in a
function)
.slab_flags = SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU,
^
Caused by commit
c7a545924ca1 ("mm: Rename
Hi Paul,
After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
net/smc/af_smc.c:102:16: error: 'SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU' undeclared here (not in a
function)
.slab_flags = SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU,
^
Caused by commit
c7a545924ca1 ("mm: Rename
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 02:37:36PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c: In function 'vmx_init':
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c:11026:2: error: function '_r_a_p__v' is initialized
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo