On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 7:04:54 PM CEST Saeed Mahameed wrote: > Ok, I see. It would be nice if the process had a way to avoid build > regressions > in linux-next, in particular if you already have a fix by the time a patch > that introduces a problem gets added. >
The reason we added this tree is to get 0-day testing but currently it makes some unwanted noise so we will remove it until we figure it out. > > Can you check if the fix for the second problem correctly removes the > unnecessary 64-bit division (as opposed to adding a call to div_s64() > or do_div()), and if it removes all traces of 'struct timespec' again? > Yes, same thing, already fixed, will reply to that thread.
