linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2018-11-07 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20181107: The tip tree still had its build failure for which I applied a fix patch. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1793 1942 files changed, 81402 insertions(+), 84317 deletions(-)

linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2018-11-07 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20181107: The tip tree still had its build failure for which I applied a fix patch. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1793 1942 files changed, 81402 insertions(+), 84317 deletions(-)

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8 (timer conversions)

2017-11-08 Thread Kees Cook
timer_setup() conversion[1] status update: As of this -next tree, there are (at least) 249 "non trivial" conversions staged (with a matching subject of ": Convert timers to use timer_setup"), producing: 736 files changed, 3446 insertions(+), 4001 deletions(-) There are 20 outstanding

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8 (timer conversions)

2017-11-08 Thread Kees Cook
timer_setup() conversion[1] status update: As of this -next tree, there are (at least) 249 "non trivial" conversions staged (with a matching subject of ": Convert timers to use timer_setup"), producing: 736 files changed, 3446 insertions(+), 4001 deletions(-) There are 20 outstanding

linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2017-11-07 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20171107: The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a patch. It also gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The tip tree gained a conflict against the crypto tree and a build failure so I used the version from next-20171107. The drivers-x86 tree

linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2017-11-07 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20171107: The powerpc tree still had its build failure for which I applied a patch. It also gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The tip tree gained a conflict against the crypto tree and a build failure so I used the version from next-20171107. The drivers-x86 tree

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8 (netdev, netfilter)

2016-11-08 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 11/07/16 23:38, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20161028: on i386 or x86_64: net/built-in.o: In function `nf_sk_lookup_slow_v4': (.text+0x97414): undefined reference to `udp4_lib_lookup' when these are not enabled: #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NETFILTER_XT_MATCH_SOCKET) || \

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8 (netdev, netfilter)

2016-11-08 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 11/07/16 23:38, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20161028: on i386 or x86_64: net/built-in.o: In function `nf_sk_lookup_slow_v4': (.text+0x97414): undefined reference to `udp4_lib_lookup' when these are not enabled: #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NETFILTER_XT_MATCH_SOCKET) || \

linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2016-11-07 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20161028: New tree: scsi-mkp The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The rdma-leon-test tree gained a conflict against the net-next tree. The kspp tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree. The sound-asoc tree gained a build failure, so I used the

linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2016-11-07 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20161028: New tree: scsi-mkp The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The rdma-leon-test tree gained a conflict against the net-next tree. The kspp tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree. The sound-asoc tree gained a build failure, so I used the

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8 (various vfs)

2013-11-08 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 10:48:53AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > vfs build errors: > > fs/open.c:486:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'break_deleg_wait' > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > fs/namei.c:3726:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'break_deleg_wait' >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8 (various vfs)

2013-11-08 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 11/08/13 00:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Please do *not* add any v3.14 material to linux-next until after > v3.13-rc1 is released. > > [A bit of a mess today :-(] > > Changes since 20131107: > > The vfs tree lost its build failure but gained a conflict against Linus' > tree. >

linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2013-11-08 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Please do *not* add any v3.14 material to linux-next until after v3.13-rc1 is released. [A bit of a mess today :-(] Changes since 20131107: Removed tree: aio-direct (at maintainer request, being reworked) Dropped tree: userns (too difficult conflict) The vfs tree lost its build

linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2013-11-08 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Please do *not* add any v3.14 material to linux-next until after v3.13-rc1 is released. [A bit of a mess today :-(] Changes since 20131107: Removed tree: aio-direct (at maintainer request, being reworked) Dropped tree: userns (too difficult conflict) The vfs tree lost its build

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8 (various vfs)

2013-11-08 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 11/08/13 00:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Please do *not* add any v3.14 material to linux-next until after v3.13-rc1 is released. [A bit of a mess today :-(] Changes since 20131107: The vfs tree lost its build failure but gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The userns

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8 (various vfs)

2013-11-08 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 10:48:53AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: vfs build errors: fs/open.c:486:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'break_deleg_wait' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] fs/namei.c:3726:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'break_deleg_wait'

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2012-11-08 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Em Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:10:29 +0100 Sedat Dilek escreveu: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20121107: > > > [...] > > > > The v4l-dvb tree still has its build failure so I used the version from > > next-20121026. > > > > Hi, > > I am

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2012-11-08 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20121107: > [...] > > The v4l-dvb tree still has its build failure so I used the version from > next-20121026. > Hi, I am just wondering why this v4l-dvb issues are still present... ...since 26-Oct-2012...

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2012-11-08 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20121107: [...] The v4l-dvb tree still has its build failure so I used the version from next-20121026. Hi, I am just wondering why this v4l-dvb issues are still present... ...since

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2012-11-08 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Em Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:10:29 +0100 Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com escreveu: On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20121107: [...] The v4l-dvb tree still has its build failure so I used the version from

linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2012-11-07 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20121107: The pci tree still has its build failure for which I applied a merge fix patch. The v4l-dvb tree still has its build failure so I used the version from next-20121026. The pinctrl tree still has its build failure for which I applied a patch.

linux-next: Tree for Nov 8

2012-11-07 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20121107: The pci tree still has its build failure for which I applied a merge fix patch. The v4l-dvb tree still has its build failure so I used the version from next-20121026. The pinctrl tree still has its build failure for which I applied a patch.