On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 2:44 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:15 PM Rob Herring wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 1:17 PM Saravana Kannan
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:06 AM Saravana Kannan
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 1
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:15 PM Rob Herring wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 1:17 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:06 AM Saravana Kannan
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:18 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:47:20PM +110
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 1:17 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:06 AM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:18 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:47:20PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > After merging t
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:17:16AM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:06 AM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:18 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:47:20PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > After me
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:06 AM Saravana Kannan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:18 AM Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:47:20PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64
> > > defconfig) fa
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:18 AM Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:47:20PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64
> > defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > drivers/of/property.o: In function `parse_interru
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:47:20PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64
> defconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/of/property.o: In function `parse_interrupts':
> property.c:(.text+0x14e0): undefined reference to `of_i
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 09:21:05AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 03:47:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > lib/test_firmware.c: In function 'trigg
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 03:47:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> lib/test_firmware.c: In function 'trigger_request_platform_store':
> lib/test_firmware.c:517:35: error: 'efi_e
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 03:47:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> lib/test_firmware.c: In function 'trigger_request_platform_store':
> lib/test_firmware.c:517:35: error: 'efi_e
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:17:38PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 04:55:39PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > In file included from include/linux/dmi
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 04:55:39PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from include/linux/dmi.h:5,
> from drivers/firmware/efi/embedded-firmware.c:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:03:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build
> > > for arm64 allmodconfig failed like this:
> >
On 09/18/2019 08:07 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:03:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build
for arm64 allmodcon
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:03:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build
> > > for arm64 allmodconfig failed like th
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build
> > for arm64 allmodconfig failed like this:
>
> Wait, I thought Linus said this fixup was now resolved. What went
>
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build
> for arm64 allmodconfig failed like this:
>
> /home/broonie/next/next/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c: In function
> 'i2c_acpi_find_adapter_by_handle':
> /home/broo
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:35:15PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> ERROR: "platform_get_irq_optional" [drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.ko] undefined!
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 6e7e5
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 01:41:46PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> ERROR: "__arm_smccc_hvc" [drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: "__arm_smccc_smc" [drivers/f
On (06/13/17 08:20), Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 04:04:18PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c:1296:28: error: expected ')'
Hi Greg,
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:20:48 +0200 Greg KH wrote:
>
> Odd that 0-day isn't giving me any failed build reports :(
Yeah, I wonder if 0-day is doing x86_64 allmodconfig builds regularly ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 04:04:18PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c:1296:28: error: expected ')' before numeric
> constant
> static CLASS_ATTR(ho
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:40:47AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:42:58PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >Hi Greg,
> >
> >After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> >allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >
> >In file included from include
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:42:58PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>Hi Greg,
>
>After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
>allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
>In file included from include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:1:0,
> from include/linux/stddef.h:4,
>
Hi Stephen, Greg,
Le Wednesday 28 May 2014 à 18:03 +1000, Stephen Rothwell a écrit :
> Hi Greg,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/crypto/nx/nx-842.c: In function 'nx842_probe':
> drivers/crypto/nx/nx-842.c:1
Hello, Ben.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:22:26AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 18:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > So, looked at the failed code. The only necessary change seems to be
> > calling device_remove_file_self() in dump_ack_store() and then doing
> > kobject_p
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 18:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> So, looked at the failed code. The only necessary change seems to be
> calling device_remove_file_self() in dump_ack_store() and then doing
> kobject_put() directly afterwards, which would have been completely
> fine as a merge fix patch.
Ok.
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:56 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> No you can't, sorry.
>
> And this seems like a huge abuse of sysfs, you better be using binary
> sysfs files for your log data...
>
> Do you have a pointer to where you document this sysfs api in
> Documentation/ABI/ ?
Yes, the patch adds the
Tejun Heo writes:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:05:54PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I think this is being blown out of proportion. It was a rarely used
>> API and converting to the new one is mostly trivial which can be
>
> So, looked at the failed code. The only necessary change seems to be
> cal
Greg KH writes:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 07:33:30AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 11:33 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> > There were only 3 (or 4), users of this api, and no new ones had been
>> > added in _years_, it's a very obscure thing, and odds are, it wouldn't
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:05:54PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I think this is being blown out of proportion. It was a rarely used
> API and converting to the new one is mostly trivial which can be
So, looked at the failed code. The only necessary change seems to be
calling device_remove_file_self
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 02:56:19PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Now regarding the practicals of sorting out our trees, Stephen suggested
> > that rather than doing anything on my side (heh, I like that !), you
> > should revert the last patch of the series, the one removing the old
> > API, in
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 07:33:30AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 11:33 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > There were only 3 (or 4), users of this api, and no new ones had been
> > added in _years_, it's a very obscure thing, and odds are, it wouldn't
> > ever be added again
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 11:33 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> There were only 3 (or 4), users of this api, and no new ones had been
> added in _years_, it's a very obscure thing, and odds are, it wouldn't
> ever be added again, especially as it was just removed entirely not
> being needed anymore. And I'd
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:16:21AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:29:42 + Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:57:29PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > It's messy. Stephen really doesn't like if we pull each other trees like
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:16:11AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:50:21 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:51:52AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build ()
> > > failed like thi
Hi all,
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:51:52 + Mark Brown wrote:
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build ()
> failed like this on a PowerPC defconfig:
>
> HEAD is now at ceb98e684dec Merge remote-tracking branch
> 'driver-core/driver-core-next'
> GEN /home/broonie/nex
Hi Greg,
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:50:21 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:51:52AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build ()
> > failed like this on a PowerPC defconfig:
> >
> > HEAD is now at ceb98e684dec Merge remote-tracki
Hi Greg,
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:29:42 + Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:57:29PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > It's messy. Stephen really doesn't like if we pull each other trees like
> > that unless they are topic branches. He also doesn't like when we keep
> > p
On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 05:29 +, Greg KH wrote:
> Just take my tree, it's not a big deal, I'll merge first with Linus if
> you want and then everything is simple.
Yup, I'll do that. Thanks.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:57:29PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 00:03 +, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:14:55AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 11:37 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2014-03-12 a
On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 00:03 +, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:14:55AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 11:37 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > It's a series of rather complex patches.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:14:55AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 11:37 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > It's a series of rather complex patches. I really don't think
> > > duplicating them is a good id
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:14:55AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 11:37 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > It's a series of rather complex patches. I really don't think
> > > duplicating them is a
On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 11:37 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > It's a series of rather complex patches. I really don't think
> > duplicating them is a good idea. We can either resurrect the old API
> > to kill it again or set up a merge
On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> It's a series of rather complex patches. I really don't think
> duplicating them is a good idea. We can either resurrect the old API
> to kill it again or set up a merge branch which I don't think is too
> unusual in situations like this.
Rig
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:14:52AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> It's generally consider bad taste to pull entire trees into each
> other :-) I know Stephen isn't fan of it...
I wouldn't say it's considered "generally" bad taste. For one-off
changes, maybe. This was a rather lar
On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:02 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 06:59:56AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Either that or I can put a copy of the patch that introduces the new
> > function in my tree as long as it's a single patch. The resulting
> > conflict should resolve tr
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 06:59:56AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Either that or I can put a copy of the patch that introduces the new
> function in my tree as long as it's a single patch. The resulting
> conflict should resolve trivially and Linus should be fine if
> appropriate explanatio
On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 11:37 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:55:41PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > How do you suggest we proceed ? I can't add a fix to powerpc-next to use
> > the new function since it doesn't exist upstream yet. I would have to
> > pull drivers-c
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:55:41PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> How do you suggest we proceed ? I can't add a fix to powerpc-next to use
> the new function since it doesn't exist upstream yet. I would have to
> pull drivers-core-next in which I really don't want to do
> Can the remo
On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 18:50 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:51:52AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build ()
> > failed like this on a PowerPC defconfig:
> >
> > HEAD is now at ceb98e684dec Merge remote-tracki
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:51:52AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build ()
> failed like this on a PowerPC defconfig:
>
> HEAD is now at ceb98e684dec Merge remote-tracking branch
> 'driver-core/driver-core-next'
> GEN /home/br
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 03:39:42PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from include/linux/kobject.h:21:0,
> from include/linux/module.h:16,
>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:29:04PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from drivers/net/wireless/ath/wil6210/wil6210.h:24:0,
> from drivers/net/wir
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:29:04PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from drivers/net/wireless/ath/wil6210/wil6210.h:24:0,
> from drivers/net/wi
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:01:23PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> ERROR: "device_pm_lock" [drivers/base/firmware_class.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: "dpm_list" [drivers/base/firmwar
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Linus (Walleij), Stephen, Grant, can someone please send this patch to
> Linus (Torvalds)?
I sent it by pill request a few minutes ago.
Ironically my pull request was postponed two days for the sole reason of
getting some rotation of th
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:03:25 +0100 Mark Brown
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:32:10PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Caused by commit 01eaf2458773 ("extcon: Convert extcon_gpio to
> > devm_gpio_request_one"). devm_gpio_request_one is not currently exported
> > to modules.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:32:10PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Caused by commit 01eaf2458773 ("extcon: Convert extcon_gpio to
> devm_gpio_request_one"). devm_gpio_request_one is not currently exported
> to modules.
A patch for this has been in -next for most of this release cycle and
really
60 matches
Mail list logo
