Hi all,
Changes since 20200723:
New tree: ubifs-fixes
My fixes tree contains:
dbf24e30ce2e ("device_cgroup: Fix RCU list debugging warning")
The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net tree.
The crypto tree gained a conflict against the jc_docs tree.
The security tree still had its
Hi all,
Changes since 20190723:
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The keys tree gained a conflict against the afs tree.
The devicetree tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1806
1963 files changed, 153894 insertions(+), 30986
Hi all,
Changes since 20180723:
Dropped trees: xarray, ida (complex conflicts)
The arm64 tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The xarray tree still had its complex conflicts against the nvdimm tree
so I have dropped it again for today (along with the ida tree that is
built on top of
Hi all,
Changes since 20180723:
Dropped trees: xarray, ida (complex conflicts)
The arm64 tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The xarray tree still had its complex conflicts against the nvdimm tree
so I have dropped it again for today (along with the ida tree that is
built on top of
Hi all,
Changes since 20170721:
The kbuild tree lost its large number of build warnings.
The reset tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The clk tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The btrfs-kdave tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus'
Hi all,
Changes since 20170721:
The kbuild tree lost its large number of build warnings.
The reset tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The clk tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The btrfs-kdave tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus'
On 07/24/2016 04:26 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/24/16 01:20, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20160722:
>>
>
> on x86_64:
>
> CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=y
> CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE=1
> # CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_HASH is not set
>
>
On 07/24/2016 04:26 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/24/16 01:20, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20160722:
>>
>
> on x86_64:
>
> CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=y
> CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE=1
> # CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_HASH is not set
>
>
On 07/24/16 01:20, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20160722:
>
on x86_64:
CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=y
CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE=1
# CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_HASH is not set
../security/apparmor/lsm.c:675:25: error:
'CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_HASH_DEFAULT'
On 07/24/16 01:20, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20160722:
>
on x86_64:
CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=y
CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE=1
# CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_HASH is not set
../security/apparmor/lsm.c:675:25: error:
'CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_HASH_DEFAULT'
Hi all,
Changes since 20160722:
New tree: sh
The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a fix patch.
The sh tree gained a build failure for which I applied a patch.
The pm tree lost its build failure.
The tip tree gained a conflict against the sh tree.
The kvm-arm tree
Hi all,
Changes since 20160722:
New tree: sh
The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a fix patch.
The sh tree gained a build failure for which I applied a patch.
The pm tree lost its build failure.
The tip tree gained a conflict against the sh tree.
The kvm-arm tree
Hi all,
Changes since 20150723:
The ext4 tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20150722.
The next-next tree lost its build failure.
The wireless-drivers-next tree still had its build failure so I used the
version from next-20150721.
The input tree gained a build
Hi all,
Changes since 20150723:
The ext4 tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20150722.
The next-next tree lost its build failure.
The wireless-drivers-next tree still had its build failure so I used the
version from next-20150721.
The input tree gained a build
Hi all,
Changes since 20140723:
The net-next tree gained a conflict against the wireless tree.
The crypto tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
next-20140723.
The driver-core tree gained a conflict against the drm tree.
The usb tree gained conflicts against the arm-soc and
Hi all,
Changes since 20140723:
The net-next tree gained a conflict against the wireless tree.
The crypto tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
next-20140723.
The driver-core tree gained a conflict against the drm tree.
The usb tree gained conflicts against the arm-soc and
Hello Randy,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:32:57AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/23/13 23:32, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since 20130723:
> >
>
> on x86_64:
>
>
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `stk1160_ac97_register':
> (.text+0x414e77): undefined reference to
Hi all,
Changes since 20130723:
Removed trees:
irqdomain-current, spi-current, gpio-current, spi,
irqdomain, gpio (at maintainer's request)
Renamed trees:
spi-mb -> spi
gpio-lw -> gpio
The wireless-next tree gained a build failure for which I have applied a
Hi all,
Changes since 20130723:
Removed trees:
irqdomain-current, spi-current, gpio-current, spi,
irqdomain, gpio (at maintainer's request)
Renamed trees:
spi-mb - spi
gpio-lw - gpio
The wireless-next tree gained a build failure for which I have applied a
Hello Randy,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:32:57AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 07/23/13 23:32, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20130723:
on x86_64:
drivers/built-in.o: In function `stk1160_ac97_register':
(.text+0x414e77): undefined reference to `snd_card_create'
20 matches
Mail list logo
