On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:40:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:36:53PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Ok, so I take it you route that patch somehwere through tip?
> > I'm happy with the ubsan fix:
>
> Yeah, I'll go make a real patch with Changelog of it and
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:36:53PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> Ok, so I take it you route that patch somehwere through tip?
> I'm happy with the ubsan fix:
Yeah, I'll go make a real patch with Changelog of it and stick it in
tip.
> Acked-by: Christian Brauner
Thanks!
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:47:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:19:48PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:11:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > By popular request; here's that alternative. Completely untested :-)
> >
> > Am I not
On 10/21/19 6:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 02:35:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:33:11AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 10/18/19 12:03 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20191017:
>>>
>>> on x86_64:
>>>
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:19:48PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:11:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > By popular request; here's that alternative. Completely untested :-)
>
> Am I not getting some mails? :)
You're not on the 'right' IRC channels :-)
> I
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:11:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 02:35:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:33:11AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 10/18/19 12:03 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Changes since
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 02:35:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:33:11AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 10/18/19 12:03 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Changes since 20191017:
> > >
> >
> > on x86_64:
> > lib/usercopy.o: warning: objtool:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:33:11AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/18/19 12:03 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since 20191017:
> >
>
> on x86_64:
> lib/usercopy.o: warning: objtool: check_zeroed_user()+0x35f: call to
> __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds() with
On 10/18/19 12:03 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20191017:
>
on x86_64:
lib/usercopy.o: warning: objtool: check_zeroed_user()+0x35f: call to
__ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds() with UACCESS enabled
.o file is attached.
--
~Randy
usercopy.o
Description:
Hi all,
Changes since 20191017:
The clk tree gained a conflict against the imx-mxs tree.
The pm tree gained a conflict against the printk tree.
The tip tree gained a conflict against the net-next tree.
The char-misc tree gained a conflict against the char-misc.current tree.
The akpm tree
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 06:02:16PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> News: I will not be doing linux-next releases next week. Unfortunately
> this will probably be the first week of the merge window. :-(
>
Note: Every individual on Cc: might want to have a look. Either one of
your
On 10/18/18 12:02 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> News: I will not be doing linux-next releases next week. Unfortunately
> this will probably be the first week of the merge window. :-(
>
> Changes since 20181017:
>
on x86_64 or i386:
../drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c: In function
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 06:02:16PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> News: I will not be doing linux-next releases next week. Unfortunately
> this will probably be the first week of the merge window. :-(
>
Note: Every individual on Cc: might want to have a look. Either one of
your
On 10/18/18 12:02 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> News: I will not be doing linux-next releases next week. Unfortunately
> this will probably be the first week of the merge window. :-(
>
> Changes since 20181017:
>
on x86_64 or i386:
../drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c: In function
Hi all,
News: I will not be doing linux-next releases next week. Unfortunately
this will probably be the first week of the merge window. :-(
Changes since 20181017:
The kvm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The kvm-arm tree gained a conflict against the kvm tree.
The scsi-mkp tree
Hi all,
News: I will not be doing linux-next releases next week. Unfortunately
this will probably be the first week of the merge window. :-(
Changes since 20181017:
The kvm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The kvm-arm tree gained a conflict against the kvm tree.
The scsi-mkp tree
This has already been reported:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=147628583512117=3
Thanks.
-boris
On 10/18/2016 10:56 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/17/16 19:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20161017:
>
> on i386:
>
> arch/x86/built-in.o: In function
This has already been reported:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=147628583512117=3
Thanks.
-boris
On 10/18/2016 10:56 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/17/16 19:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20161017:
>
> on i386:
>
> arch/x86/built-in.o: In function
On 10/17/16 19:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20161017:
on i386:
arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `xen_start_kernel':
(.init.text+0x2fa6): undefined reference to `xen_cpu_dead'
arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `xen_start_kernel':
(.init.text+0x2fab): undefined
On 10/17/16 19:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20161017:
on i386:
arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `xen_start_kernel':
(.init.text+0x2fa6): undefined reference to `xen_cpu_dead'
arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `xen_start_kernel':
(.init.text+0x2fab): undefined
Hi all,
Changes since 20161017:
The drm-intel tree gained build failures so I used the version from
next-20161017.
The akpm-current tree still had its build failures for which I applied
2 patches.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 910
1213 files changed, 32579 insertions(+), 17418
Hi all,
Changes since 20161017:
The drm-intel tree gained build failures so I used the version from
next-20161017.
The akpm-current tree still had its build failures for which I applied
2 patches.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 910
1213 files changed, 32579 insertions(+), 17418
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 10:22:29AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/19/13 05:50, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've uploaded today's linux-next tree to the master branch of the
> > repository below:
> >
> > git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/linux-next.git
> >
> > A
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 10:22:29AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 10/19/13 05:50, Mark Brown wrote:
Hi all,
I've uploaded today's linux-next tree to the master branch of the
repository below:
git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/linux-next.git
A next-20131018 tag is also
Hi all,
I've uploaded today's linux-next tree to the master branch of the
repository below:
git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/linux-next.git
A next-20131018 tag is also provided for convenience.
A few new conflicts today but otherwise uneventful. x86_64 allmodconfig
builds after each
Hi all,
I've uploaded today's linux-next tree to the master branch of the
repository below:
git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/linux-next.git
A next-20131018 tag is also provided for convenience.
A few new conflicts today but otherwise uneventful. x86_64 allmodconfig
builds after each
Hi all,
Changes since 201201017:
The m68knommu gained conflicts against the m68k-current tree.
The l2-mtd tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20121011.
The hid tree lost its conflict.
The sound tree gained a build failure for which I reverted 2 commits.
The
Hi all,
Changes since 201201017:
The m68knommu gained conflicts against the m68k-current tree.
The l2-mtd tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20121011.
The hid tree lost its conflict.
The sound tree gained a build failure for which I reverted 2 commits.
The
28 matches
Mail list logo
