linux-next: Tree for Feb 7

2019-02-06 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20190206: The compiler-attributes tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20190206. The tegra tree gained a conflict against the imx-mxs tree. The opp tree gained a conflict against the cpufreq-arm tree. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the

linux-next: Tree for Feb 7

2018-02-06 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Please do not add any v4.17 material to your linux-next included branches until after v4.16-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20180206: The btrfs-kdave tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree and a build failure so I used the version from next-20180206. The kvm tree gained a confli

linux-next: Tree for Feb 7

2017-02-06 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20170206: The tty tree lost its build failure. The akpm tree gained a conflict against the net-next tree. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 7711 8737 files changed, 327880 insertions(+), 163014 deletions(-) -

linux-next: Tree for Feb 7

2014-02-06 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, This tree fails (more than usual) the powerpc allyesconfig build. Changes since 20140206: The powerpc tree still had its build failure. The fscache tree lost its build failure. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1282 1074 files changed, 39290 insertions(+), 14175 deletions(-

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 7 (fakeroot BROKEN due to SYSV IPC support?)

2013-02-07 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Eric W. Biederman >> wrote: >>> Sedat Dilek writes: >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, S

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 7 (fakeroot BROKEN due to SYSV IPC support?)

2013-02-07 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Sedat Dilek writes: > >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 7 (fakeroot BROKEN due to SYSV IPC support?)

2013-02-07 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Sedat Dilek writes: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell >>> wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130206: Removed tree: kvmtool (still present via th

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 7 (fakeroot BROKEN due to SYSV IPC support?)

2013-02-07 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20130206: >>> >>> Removed tree: kvmtool (still present via the tip tree) >>> >>> The block tr

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 7 (fakeroot BROKEN due to SYSV IPC support?)

2013-02-07 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Changes since 20130206: >> >> Removed tree: kvmtool (still present via the tip tree) >> >> The block tree lost its build failure. >> >> The tip tree gained a conflict

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 7 (fakeroot BROKEN due to SYSV IPC support?)

2013-02-07 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130206: > > Removed tree: kvmtool (still present via the tip tree) > > The block tree lost its build failure. > > The tip tree gained a conflict against the s390 tree. > > The kvm tree gained a conflict against L