Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote on 12/01/2010 00:58:05:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
cc1: error: include/linux/autoconf.h: No such file or directory
(while building the boot wrappers - lots more of the same)
Caused by commit
Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote on 12/01/2010 00:58:05:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
cc1: error: include/linux/autoconf.h: No such file or directory
(while building the boot wrappers - lots more of the same)
Caused by commit
Ah - thanks. The bug was caused by me being a bit too optimistic in
applying the shiny-new Power7 support patches on the last day. (nice
CPU btw.)
In that case paulus tells me it's actually Peter screwing up moving
something from the powerpc code to generic :-)
.../...
Such bugs happen,
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:33 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
We should at least -try- to follow the
process we've defined, don't you think ?
So you're saying -next should include whole new subsystems even though
its not clear they will be merged?
That'll invariably create the opposite case
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:33 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
We should at least -try- to follow the
process we've defined, don't you think ?
So you're saying -next should include whole new subsystems even
though its not clear they will
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:33 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
We should at least -try- to follow the
process we've defined, don't you think ?
So you're saying -next should include whole new subsystems even though
its not clear
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 10:24 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
From: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:14:22 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] perfcounters: remove powerpc definitions of
perf_counter_do_pending
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
Ah - thanks. The bug was caused by me being a bit too optimistic
in applying the shiny-new Power7 support patches on the last
day. (nice CPU btw.)
In that case paulus tells me it's actually Peter screwing up
moving something
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
linux-next has integration testing so that interactions between
maintainer trees are mapped and that architectures that otherwise
few people use get build-tested too (well beyond
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
To some extent, here, the issue is on Linus side and it's up to him (Hey
Linus ! still listening ?) to maybe be more proactive at giving an ack
or nack so that we can get a
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
linux-next should not be second-guessing maintainers and should
not act as an approval forum for controversial features,
increasing the (already quite substantial) pressure on
maintainers to apply more crap.
I agree here.
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
To some extent, here, the issue is on Linus side and it's up to him (Hey
Linus ! still listening ?) to maybe be
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:44 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
This is certainly doable for agreeable features - which is the bulk
- and it is being done.
But this is a catch-22 for _controversial_ new features - which
perfcounters clearly was, in case you turned off your lkml
subscription ;-)
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
To some extent, here, the issue is on Linus side and
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:44 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
This is certainly doable for agreeable features - which is the bulk
- and it is being done.
But this is a catch-22 for _controversial_ new features - which
perfcounters
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar
Uhm, the bug you are making a big deal of would have been found and
fixed by Paulus a few hours after any such mail - and probably by me
too as i do daily cross builds to Power.
So yes, we had a bug, but any extra linux-next hoops would not have
prevented it: i could still have messed
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:11 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Maybe. But maybe it's representative... so far in this merge
window, 100% of the powerpc build and runtime breakage upstream
comes from stuff that didn't get into -next before.
But that's axiomatic, isnt it? linux-next build-tests
Hi Ingo,
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:44:28 +0200 Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
In terms of test coverage, at least for our trees, less than 1% of
the bugs we handle get reported in a linux-next context - and most
of the bugs that get reported (against say the scheduler tree) are
related to
Hi Ingo,
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:11:18 +0200 Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
But that's axiomatic, isnt it? linux-next build-tests PowerPC as the
first in the row of tests - so no change that was in linux-next can
ever cause a build failure on PowerPC, right?
Not really. I build a powerpc
Stephen Rothwell writes:
Subject: [PATCH] perfcounters: remove powerpc definitions of
perf_counter_do_pending
Commit 925d519ab82b6dd7aca9420d809ee83819c08db2 (perf_counter:
unify and fix delayed counter wakeup) added global definitions.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 10:24 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
From: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:14:22 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] perfcounters: remove powerpc definitions of
perf_counter_do_pending
Commit 925d519ab82b6dd7aca9420d809ee83819c08db2 (perf_counter:
Hi Ingo,
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:32:14 +0100 Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
It slipped through because it didnt get caught in build tests because
cpufreq isnt enabled in the powerpc defconfig.
Which is one of the reasons we have
* Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
It slipped through because it didnt get caught in build tests because
cpufreq isnt enabled in the powerpc defconfig.
Which is one of the reasons we have linux-next: integration testing.
Build bugs slipped through that net too in the past.
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 10:05 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 10:48 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Linus,
Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
* Michael Ellerman mich...@ellerman.id.au wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 10:05 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 10:48 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Linus,
Today's linux-next build (powerpc
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 10:48 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Linus,
Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
arch/powerpc/platforms/pasemi/cpufreq.c: In function 'pas_cpufreq_cpu_init':
arch/powerpc/platforms/pasemi/cpufreq.c:216: error: incompatible types in
27 matches
Mail list logo
