On 9/19/19 9:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20190918:
>
../drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dml/Makefile:70: *** missing
'endif'. Stop.
--
~Randy
Hi all,
Changes since 20190918:
The btrfs-kave tree gained a conflict with Linus' tree which I wasn't
comfortable resolving so I skipped the tre for today.
The ext4 tree gained a conflict with Linus' tree which I fixed up.
The nvdimm tree gained a conflict with the libnvdimm-fixes tree which I
Hi all,
Changes since 20180918:
Dropped trees: xarray, ida (temporarily)
The input-current tree gained a build failure so I used the version
from next-20180918.
I still disabled building some samples in the vfs tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4106
4562 files changed,
Hi all,
Changes since 20180918:
Dropped trees: xarray, ida (temporarily)
The input-current tree gained a build failure so I used the version
from next-20180918.
I still disabled building some samples in the vfs tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4106
4562 files changed,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 06:00:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Felix Schnizlein wrote:
> > On 26.09.17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > And these patches were posted many times, Felix, you did cc: the arch
> > > > maintainers, right? I don't have access to my archives at
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 06:00:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Felix Schnizlein wrote:
> > On 26.09.17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > And these patches were posted many times, Felix, you did cc: the arch
> > > > maintainers, right? I don't have access to my archives at
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Felix Schnizlein wrote:
> On 26.09.17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > And these patches were posted many times, Felix, you did cc: the arch
> > > maintainers, right? I don't have access to my archives at the moment...
> I send all my patches via:
> git send-email --to
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Felix Schnizlein wrote:
> On 26.09.17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > And these patches were posted many times, Felix, you did cc: the arch
> > > maintainers, right? I don't have access to my archives at the moment...
> I send all my patches via:
> git send-email --to
On 26.09.17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:40:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell
On 26.09.17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:40:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:40:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> Changes
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:40:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> Changes
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:40:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Changes since 20170918:
> > >>
> > >> Linus' tree still had its build
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:40:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Changes since 20170918:
> > >>
> > >> Linus' tree still had its build
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Changes since 20170918:
> >>
> >> Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
> >>
> >
> > on i386:
> >
> >
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Changes since 20170918:
> >>
> >> Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
> >>
> >
> > on i386:
> >
> >
On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20170918:
>>
>> Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
>>
>
> on i386:
>
> ../arch/x86/kernel/cpuinfo.c: In function 'cpuinfo_flags':
>
On 09/19/17 08:54, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20170918:
>>
>> Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
>>
>
> on i386:
>
> ../arch/x86/kernel/cpuinfo.c: In function 'cpuinfo_flags':
>
On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20170918:
>
> Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
>
on i386:
../arch/x86/kernel/cpuinfo.c: In function 'cpuinfo_flags':
../arch/x86/kernel/cpuinfo.c:35:26: error: 'x86_cap_flags'
On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20170918:
>
> Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
>
on i386:
../arch/x86/kernel/cpuinfo.c: In function 'cpuinfo_flags':
../arch/x86/kernel/cpuinfo.c:35:26: error: 'x86_cap_flags'
On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20170918:
>
> Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
>
> The drm-intel tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree.
>
on x86_64:
In file included from
On 09/18/17 21:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20170918:
>
> Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
>
> The drm-intel tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree.
>
on x86_64:
In file included from
Hi all,
Changes since 20170918:
Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
The drm-intel tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 945
802 files changed, 40740 insertions(+), 12411 deletions(-)
Hi all,
Changes since 20170918:
Linus' tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit.
The drm-intel tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 945
802 files changed, 40740 insertions(+), 12411 deletions(-)
Hi all,
Changes since 20160916:
The kbuild tree still had its build failure and warnings for PowerPC,
for which I applied a couple of patches
The f2fs tree gained a conflict against the ext4 tree.
The block tree lost its build failure but gained another for which I
applied a fix patch
The
Hi all,
Changes since 20160916:
The kbuild tree still had its build failure and warnings for PowerPC,
for which I applied a couple of patches
The f2fs tree gained a conflict against the ext4 tree.
The block tree lost its build failure but gained another for which I
applied a fix patch
The
Hi Guenter,
I've pushed the patch from Avago to fix this issue to
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git drivers-for-3.18
James, can you pull it into your SCSI tree so it gets to Linux-next?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
Hi Guenter,
Trond commited the fix for this yesterday. If this error doesn't disappear
from the next linux-next build that contains:
"pnfs/blocklayout: Fix a 64-bit division/remainder issue in bl_map_stripe"
please contact me as we might have another problem in that case.
--
To unsubscribe
Hi Guenter,
Trond commited the fix for this yesterday. If this error doesn't disappear
from the next linux-next build that contains:
pnfs/blocklayout: Fix a 64-bit division/remainder issue in bl_map_stripe
please contact me as we might have another problem in that case.
--
To unsubscribe from
Hi Guenter,
I've pushed the patch from Avago to fix this issue to
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi-queue.git drivers-for-3.18
James, can you pull it into your SCSI tree so it gets to Linux-next?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
Hi Günter,
On 09/20/2014 11:01 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/20/2014 12:36 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
Hi Günter,
On 09/19/2014 09:15 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so
Hi Günter,
On 09/20/2014 11:01 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/20/2014 12:36 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
Hi Günter,
On 09/19/2014 09:15 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so
On 09/20/2014 12:36 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
Hi Günter,
On 09/19/2014 09:15 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree
Hi Günter,
On 09/19/2014 09:15 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree
Hi Günter,
On 09/19/2014 09:15 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree
On 09/20/2014 12:36 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
Hi Günter,
On 09/19/2014 09:15 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree
On 09/19/2014 07:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Anish Bhatt
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:43:05 +
Original config causing issues can be seen here :
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/9/500
As CNIC depends on IPV6, CNIC can be only compiled as a module when IPV6 is
compiled as a module. This was
From: Anish Bhatt
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:43:05 +
> Original config causing issues can be seen here :
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/9/500
>
> As CNIC depends on IPV6, CNIC can be only compiled as a module when IPV6 is
> compiled as a module. This was the patch I originally commited.
: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:09 PM
To: Guenter Roeck; Stephen Rothwell
Cc: linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Anish Bhatt;
David S. Miller; James E.J. Bottomley
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19
On 09/19/14 17:15, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/19/2014 03:21 PM, Ra
On 09/19/14 17:15, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/19/2014 03:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure
On 09/19/2014 02:42 PM, Anish Bhatt wrote:
If you're just bisecting, you probably want my very first commit that started
this :
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=c99d667e852766afc755fa4430be64bb94e5ea1c
Essentially, the bnx2 modules would silently disable
On 09/19/2014 03:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its
rnel.org; Anish Bhatt;
> David S. Miller; James E.J. Bottomley
> Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19
>
> On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Chan
. Bottomley
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19
On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20140917:
>>
>> The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used
On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20140917:
>>
>> The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
>> next-20140917.
>>
>> The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
>>
>> The
...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Anish Bhatt;
David S. Miller; James E.J. Bottomley
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20140917:
>
> The fsl tree still had its build fa
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20140917:
>
> The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> next-20140917.
>
> The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
>
> The security tree gained a conflict against the
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20140917:
>
> The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> next-20140917.
>
> The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
>
> The security tree gained a conflict against the
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20140917:
>
> The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> next-20140917.
>
> The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
>
> The security tree gained a conflict against the
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20140917:
>
> The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> next-20140917.
>
> The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
>
> The security tree gained a conflict against the
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20140917:
>
> The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> next-20140917.
>
> The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
>
> The security tree gained a conflict against the
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20140917:
>
> The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> next-20140917.
>
> The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
>
> The security tree gained a conflict against the
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree gained a conflict against the file-locks tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 6014
5488 files changed,
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree gained a conflict against the file-locks tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 6014
5488 files changed,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree gained a conflict against the file-locks
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree gained a conflict against the file-locks
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree gained a conflict against the file-locks
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree gained a conflict against the file-locks
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree gained a conflict against the file-locks
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree gained a conflict against the file-locks
...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Anish Bhatt;
David S. Miller; James E.J. Bottomley
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version
On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
The security tree gained
. Bottomley
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19
On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree
; James E.J. Bottomley
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19
On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l
On 09/19/2014 03:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
next-20140917.
The v4l-dvb tree lost its
On 09/19/2014 02:42 PM, Anish Bhatt wrote:
If you're just bisecting, you probably want my very first commit that started
this :
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=c99d667e852766afc755fa4430be64bb94e5ea1c
Essentially, the bnx2 modules would silently disable
On 09/19/14 17:15, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/19/2014 03:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 09/19/14 14:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20140917:
The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:09 PM
To: Guenter Roeck; Stephen Rothwell
Cc: linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Anish Bhatt;
David S. Miller; James E.J. Bottomley
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19
On 09/19/14 17:15, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/19/2014 03:21 PM, Randy
From: Anish Bhatt an...@chelsio.com
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:43:05 +
Original config causing issues can be seen here :
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/9/500
As CNIC depends on IPV6, CNIC can be only compiled as a module when IPV6 is
compiled as a module. This was the patch I originally
On 09/19/2014 07:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Anish Bhatt an...@chelsio.com
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:43:05 +
Original config causing issues can be seen here :
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/9/500
As CNIC depends on IPV6, CNIC can be only compiled as a module when IPV6 is
compiled as a
Hi all,
Changes since 20130918:
The gpio tree lost its build failure.
I have created today's linux-next tree at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
(patches at
Hi all,
Changes since 20130918:
The gpio tree lost its build failure.
I have created today's linux-next tree at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
(patches at
72 matches
Mail list logo
