On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 10:39 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 12/7/20 1:25 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since 20201204:
> >
>
> on i386:
> # CONFIG_NET is not set
>
> ld: kernel/trace/bpf_trace.o: in function `bpf_sock_from_file':
> bpf_trace.c:(.text+0xe23): undefined
On 12/7/20 1:25 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20201204:
>
on i386:
# CONFIG_NET is not set
ld: kernel/trace/bpf_trace.o: in function `bpf_sock_from_file':
bpf_trace.c:(.text+0xe23): undefined reference to `sock_from_file'
--
~Randy
Reported-by: Randy Dunlap
Hi all,
Changes since 20201204:
The nfs-anna tree gained a conflict against the nfs tree.
The block tree gained a conflict against the btrfs tree and a semantic
conflict against the bpf-next tree.
The rcu tree lost its build failure.
The kvm-arm tree gained a difficult conflict against the arm
Hi all,
Changes since 20181206:
The arm64 tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The risc-v tree gained a conflict against the dma-mapping tree.
The jc_docs tree gained a conflict against the fscrypt tree.
The thermal tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
next-20181206.
Hi all,
Changes since 20171206:
New tree: kvms390-fixes
The vfs tree gained conflicts against the bpf and netfilter trees.
The printk tree gained a new build failure so I used the tree from
next-20171206 with a reverted commit.
The netfilter-next tree gained a conflict against the netfilter tr
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:29:35 +1100
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:30:57 -0800 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > On 12/07/16 15:56, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:42:32 -0800 Randy Dunlap
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I started seeing this y
Hi all,
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:30:57 -0800 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> On 12/07/16 15:56, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:42:32 -0800 Randy Dunlap
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I started seeing this yesterday (2016-1206).
> >> This is on x86_64.
> >>
> >> Anybody know about it?
> >>
On 12/07/16 15:56, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:42:32 -0800 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>
>> I started seeing this yesterday (2016-1206).
>> This is on x86_64.
>>
>> Anybody know about it?
>>
>> kallsyms failure: relative symbol value 0x8100 out of range in
Hi Randy,
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:42:32 -0800 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> I started seeing this yesterday (2016-1206).
> This is on x86_64.
>
> Anybody know about it?
>
> kallsyms failure: relative symbol value 0x8100 out of range in
> relative mode
I got a similar failure starting a fe
On 12/06/16 22:24, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20161206:
>
> The powerpc allyesconfig build fails for this release.
>
> The pinctrl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> next-20161202.
>
> The sound-asoc tree lost its build failure.
>
> The tip t
Hi all,
Changes since 20161206:
The powerpc allyesconfig build fails for this release.
The pinctrl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20161202.
The sound-asoc tree lost its build failure.
The tip tree gained a perf build failure that went away when the build
was r
Hi all,
Changes since 20151203:
Dropped tree: cgroup (complex conflict)
The vfs tree gained conflicts against the file-locks and Linus' trees.
The wireless-drivers-next tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The drm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The modules tree lost its bu
12 matches
Mail list logo
