Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (objtool: 2 warnings)

2021-01-18 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:16:14AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 1/17/21 10:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20210115: > > > > on x86_64: > > lib/iov_iter.o: warning: objtool: iovec_from_user()+0x157: call to > __ubsan_handle_add_overflow() with UACCESS enable

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (objtool: 2 warnings)

2021-01-18 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 1/17/21 10:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20210115: > on x86_64: lib/iov_iter.o: warning: objtool: iovec_from_user()+0x157: call to __ubsan_handle_add_overflow() with UACCESS enabled fs/select.o: warning: objtool: do_sys_poll()+0x669: call to __ubsan_handle_sub_

linux-next: Tree for Jan 18

2021-01-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20210115: New trees: oprofile-removal gpio-brgl-fixes The drm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree but still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20210107. The amdgpu tree lost its build failure. The drm-intel tree still had its build failure from m

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (i2c-designware-platdrv.c)

2019-01-21 Thread Jarkko Nikula
Hi On 1/18/19 6:27 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 1/17/19 8:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20190117: on i386 or x86_64: ld: drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.o: in function `dw_i2c_plat_resume': i2c-designware-platdrv.c:(.text+0x4b): undefined reference to `i2c_

linux-next: Tree for Jan 18

2019-01-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20190117: The arc-current tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The vfs tree still had its build failure for which I applied a patch. The mali-dp tree still had its failure for which I applied a merge fix patch. The imx-drm tree gained a build failure for which I re

linux-next: Tree for Jan 18

2018-01-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20180117: The powerpc tree gained a conflict against the powerpc-fixes tree. The f2fs tree gained a build failure due to an interaction with the btrfs tree for which I reverted a commit. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. Non-merge commits (relative

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18

2017-01-19 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 18 January 2017 at 20:44, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Changes since 20170117: >> >> The arm-soc tree gained a conflict against the arm tree. >> >> The amlogic tree gained a conflict against the arm-soc tree. >> >> Non-me

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18

2017-01-18 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
(+ Arnd) On 18 January 2017 at 20:44, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Changes since 20170117: >> >> The arm-soc tree gained a conflict against the arm tree. >> >> The amlogic tree gained a conflict against the arm-soc tree. >>

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18

2017-01-18 Thread Paul Gortmaker
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20170117: > > The arm-soc tree gained a conflict against the arm tree. > > The amlogic tree gained a conflict against the arm-soc tree. > > Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3676 > 4511 files changed

linux-next: Tree for Jan 18

2017-01-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20170117: The arm-soc tree gained a conflict against the arm tree. The amlogic tree gained a conflict against the arm-soc tree. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3676 4511 files changed, 139928 insertions(+), 85028 deletions(-)

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (x509)

2013-01-21 Thread David Howells
Randy Dunlap wrote: > > Changes since 20130117: > > > > on x86_64: > > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `signing_key.x509', needed by > `kernel/x509_certificate_list'. Stop. > > > Full randconfig file is attached. Works for me. It's likely that the changes I made on the 18th aren't in

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (acpi)

2013-01-19 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 02:50:17 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> > On Friday, January 18, 2013 05:42:20 PM Randy Dunlap

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (acpi)

2013-01-19 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, January 19, 2013 02:50:17 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Friday, January 18, 2013 05:42:20 PM Randy Dunlap wrote: >> >> On 01/17/13 20:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (acpi)

2013-01-19 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 02:50:17 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, January 18, 2013 05:42:20 PM Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 01/17/13 20:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > Changes since 20130117: > >> > > >>

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (acpi)

2013-01-19 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, January 18, 2013 05:42:20 PM Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 01/17/13 20:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Changes since 20130117: >> > >> >> >> on x86_64: >> >> CC drivers/acpi/device_pm.o >> drivers/acpi/dev

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (acpi)

2013-01-19 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, January 18, 2013 05:42:20 PM Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 01/17/13 20:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20130117: > > > > > on x86_64: > > CC drivers/acpi/device_pm.o > drivers/acpi/device_pm.c:778:5: error: redefinition of 'acpi_dev_suspend_late' > In

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN tty-next on suspend ]

2013-01-19 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130117: > > Undropped tree: samung > > The powerpc tree still had a build failure. > > The driver-core tree gained a build failure for which I applied a merge > fix patch. > > The gpio-lw tree gained a build fai

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-19 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:41:11 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:41:11 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> > On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:28:55 AM Sedat Di

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:41:11 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:28:55 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Rafael

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:41:11 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> > On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:28:55 AM Sedat Di

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:41:11 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:28:55 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Rafael

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:41:11 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:28:55 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:56:53 PM

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:28:55 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:56:53 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Sedat Dil

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:28:55 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:56:53 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Sedat Dilek > >> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Rafael

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:56:53 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:11:07 PM Sedat Dile

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [MODSIGN: KEYS:]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:54 PM, David Howells wrote: >> Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >>> Culprit seems to be... >>> >>> commit d6941c0c6bd42c725e45240a86c4add92e9bfb3e >>> "KEYS: Separate the kernel signature checking keyring from module signing"

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:56:53 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:11:07 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [MODSIGN: KEYS:]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:54 PM, David Howells wrote: > Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> Culprit seems to be... >> >> commit d6941c0c6bd42c725e45240a86c4add92e9bfb3e >> "KEYS: Separate the kernel signature checking keyring from module signing" > > Try updating. I pushed a new version out today. This is

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 (powerclamp)

2013-01-18 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 01/17/13 20:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130117: > on i386; drivers/built-in.o: In function `clamp_thread': intel_powerclamp.c:(.text+0x2d39ae): undefined reference to `__udivdi3' drivers/built-in.o: In function `poll_pkg_cstate': intel_powerclamp.c:(.text+0x2d3

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:35:40 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:11:07 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell > >> wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > Changes since 201

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:11:07 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell >>> wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > Changes since 20130117: >>>

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [MODSIGN: KEYS:]

2013-01-18 Thread David Howells
Sedat Dilek wrote: > Culprit seems to be... > > commit d6941c0c6bd42c725e45240a86c4add92e9bfb3e > "KEYS: Separate the kernel signature checking keyring from module signing" Try updating. I pushed a new version out today. This is now at commit ID c82af351e270e0d95059d09a1975b61494fbbcd7. Davi

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:11:07 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Changes since 20130117: >> > >> > Undropped tree: samung >> > >> > The powerpc tree still

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

2013-01-18 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:11:07 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20130117: > > > > Undropped tree: samung > > > > The powerpc tree still had a build failure. > > > > The driver-core tree gained a build failur

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [MODSIGN: KEYS:]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Changes since 20130117: >> >> Undropped tree: samung >> >> The powerpc tree still had a build failure. >> >> The driver-core tree gained a build failure for which I

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [MODSIGN: KEYS:]

2013-01-18 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130117: > > Undropped tree: samung > > The powerpc tree still had a build failure. > > The driver-core tree gained a build failure for which I applied a merge > fix patch. > > The gpio-lw tree gained a build fai

linux-next: Tree for Jan 18

2013-01-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20130117: Undropped tree: samung The powerpc tree still had a build failure. The driver-core tree gained a build failure for which I applied a merge fix patch. The gpio-lw tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20130117. The samsung tree lost the maj