linux-next: Tree for Sep 18

2020-09-18 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20200917: The drm-msm tree gained a conflict against the drm tree. The rcu tree lost its build failure. The staging tree gained a conflict against the crypto tree. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 7953 8747 files changed, 281548 insertions(+), 153985 deletion

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (objtool)

2019-09-23 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 09:16:57AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:33:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 07:49:01AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (objtool)

2019-09-23 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:33:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 07:49:01AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:04:21PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > On 9/18/19 3:10 PM, Mark

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (objtool)

2019-09-23 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 07:49:01AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:04:21PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On 9/18/19 3:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Changes since 20190917: >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (objtool)

2019-09-23 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:04:21PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 9/18/19 3:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Changes since 20190917: > > > > > > > on x86_64: > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuff

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (objtool)

2019-09-23 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:04:21PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 9/18/19 3:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20190917: > > > > on x86_64: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.o: warning: objtool: > i915_gem_execbuffer2_ioctl()+0x2fb: call to gen8_canonica

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (objtool)

2019-09-19 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 9/19/19 12:40 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:21:46PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 9/19/19 9:51 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:04:21PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 9/18/19 3:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes sinc

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (objtool)

2019-09-19 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:21:46PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 9/19/19 9:51 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:04:21PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 9/18/19 3:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Changes since 20190917: > >>> > >> > >> on x86_64: > >> >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (objtool)

2019-09-19 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 9/19/19 9:51 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:04:21PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 9/18/19 3:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20190917: >>> >> >> on x86_64: >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.o: warning: objtool: >> i915_gem_ex

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (objtool)

2019-09-19 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:04:21PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 9/18/19 3:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20190917: > > > > on x86_64: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.o: warning: objtool: > i915_gem_execbuffer2_ioctl()+0x2fb: call to gen8_canonica

linux-next: Tree for Sep 18

2019-09-18 Thread Mark Brown
Hi all, Changes since 20190917: The sound-current tree gained a build failure for which I reverted a commit. The driver-core tree gained a merge failure which I fixed up. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 8551 7914 files changed, 621805 insertions(+), 224850 deletions(-) --

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (kernel/bpf/syscall)

2018-09-18 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 9/17/18 10:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20180913: > on i386 or x86_64: (in 6 of 20 randconfigs) kernel/bpf/syscall.o: In function `__x64_sys_bpf': syscall.c:(.text+0x3278): undefined reference to `skb_flow_dissector_bpf_prog_attach' syscall.c:(.text+0x3310): u

linux-next: Tree for Sep 18

2018-09-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20180913: New tree: csky Dropped trees: xarray, ida (temporarily) I still disabled building some samples in the vfs tree. The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net and jc_docs trees. The drm-misc tree gained a conflict against the drm tree. The staging tree gai

linux-next: Tree for Sep 18

2017-09-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20170915: Linus' tree gained a build failure for which I reverted a commit. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 395 391 files changed, 15641 insertions(+), 4750 deletions(-) I have crea

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (build failures, up to 10/02)

2015-10-10 Thread Matt Fleming
On Sat, 03 Oct, at 11:26:07PM, Matt Fleming wrote: > > Urgh, sorry about this slipping through the cracks Guenter! > > What about fixing it up with this patch? > > --- > > From 85ae872eafef767cf37a0a305266522a62b43fc2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Matt Fleming > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 20:44:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (build failures, up to 10/02)

2015-10-03 Thread Matt Fleming
On Fri, 02 Oct, at 09:16:37AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 07:22:04AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 02:08:10PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Changes since 20150917: > > > > > > I used the h8300 tree from next-20150828 since t

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (build failures, up to 10/02)

2015-10-02 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 07:22:04AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 02:08:10PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20150917: > > > > I used the h8300 tree from next-20150828 since the current tree has been > > rebased onto something very old :-( >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 18 (build failures)

2015-09-18 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 02:08:10PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20150917: > > I used the h8300 tree from next-20150828 since the current tree has been > rebased onto something very old :-( > > The bluetooth tree still had its build failure. > > The tip tree gained

linux-next: Tree for Sep 18

2015-09-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20150917: I used the h8300 tree from next-20150828 since the current tree has been rebased onto something very old :-( The bluetooth tree still had its build failure. The tip tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The akpm-current tree lost its build failure. Non-me

linux-next: Tree for Sep 18

2014-09-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20140917: The net tree lost its build failure. The fsl tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20140917. The v4l-dvb tree still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20140908. The kvm-arm tree gained a conflict against the kvm tree. Th

linux-next: Tree for Sep 18

2013-09-17 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 20130917: Removed trees: davinci, 4xx, hwpoison, ptr-ret (all finished with) The vfs tree gained a conflict against the aio-direct tree. The drm-intel tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree. The gpio tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20130917.