linux-next: Tree for Sep 7

Hi all, Changes since 20180906: Dropped trees: xarray, ida (temporarily) The vfs tree still had its build failures for which I disabled some sample programs. The net-next tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. The bfp-next tree gained a conflict against the above

linux-next: Tree for Sep 7

Hi all, Changes since 20180906: Dropped trees: xarray, ida (temporarily) The vfs tree still had its build failures for which I disabled some sample programs. The net-next tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. The bfp-next tree gained a conflict against the above

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (iio/adc/stm32)

On 09/06/17 23:24, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Please do not add any v4.15 related material to your linux-next > included branches until after v4.14-rc1 has been released. > > Changes since 20170906: > on i386: CONFIG_STM32_ADC_CORE=y CONFIG_STM32_ADC=y

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (iio/adc/stm32)

On 09/06/17 23:24, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Please do not add any v4.15 related material to your linux-next > included branches until after v4.14-rc1 has been released. > > Changes since 20170906: > on i386: CONFIG_STM32_ADC_CORE=y CONFIG_STM32_ADC=y

linux-next: Tree for Sep 7

Hi all, Please do not add any v4.15 related material to your linux-next included branches until after v4.14-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20170906: The devicetree tree gained conflicts against Linus' and the sound trees. The akpm-current tree lost its build failure but regained another

linux-next: Tree for Sep 7

Hi all, Please do not add any v4.15 related material to your linux-next included branches until after v4.14-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20170906: The devicetree tree gained conflicts against Linus' and the sound trees. The akpm-current tree lost its build failure but regained another

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On 09/07/16 19:58, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:55:47 -0700 > Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> Yes, that works. Thanks. >> >> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap > > Hmm, would "Tested-by" be a more appropriate tag? I considered that. Either is OK

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On 09/07/16 19:58, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:55:47 -0700 > Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> Yes, that works. Thanks. >> >> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap > > Hmm, would "Tested-by" be a more appropriate tag? I considered that. Either is OK with me. -- ~Randy

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:42:01 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Link: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160907175258.1f17a...@canb.auug.org.au > > That is not the reporting email ... Randy's was a reply to that one > with message id >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:42:01 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Link: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160907175258.1f17a...@canb.auug.org.au > > That is not the reporting email ... Randy's was a reply to that one > with message id > "". > Strange, I wonder how I got that email. I cut

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:55:47 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > Yes, that works. Thanks. > > Acked-by: Randy Dunlap Hmm, would "Tested-by" be a more appropriate tag? -- Steve

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:55:47 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > Yes, that works. Thanks. > > Acked-by: Randy Dunlap Hmm, would "Tested-by" be a more appropriate tag? -- Steve

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

Hi Steven, On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:38:10 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > > commit 64cfdb9788bf3fb2bf6c30701fc3644f25e76df2 > Author: Steven Rostedt (Red Hat) > Date: Wed Sep 7 12:45:09 2016 -0400 > > tracing: Have max_latency be defined for

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

Hi Steven, On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:38:10 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > > commit 64cfdb9788bf3fb2bf6c30701fc3644f25e76df2 > Author: Steven Rostedt (Red Hat) > Date: Wed Sep 7 12:45:09 2016 -0400 > > tracing: Have max_latency be defined for HWLAT_TRACER as well > > The hwlat tracer

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On 09/07/16 12:38, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:48:38 -0400 > Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> Will send another one soon. > > What about this? > > -- Steve > > commit 64cfdb9788bf3fb2bf6c30701fc3644f25e76df2 > Author: Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On 09/07/16 12:38, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:48:38 -0400 > Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> Will send another one soon. > > What about this? > > -- Steve > > commit 64cfdb9788bf3fb2bf6c30701fc3644f25e76df2 > Author: Steven Rostedt (Red Hat) > Date: Wed Sep 7 12:45:09 2016

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:48:38 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > Will send another one soon. What about this? -- Steve commit 64cfdb9788bf3fb2bf6c30701fc3644f25e76df2 Author: Steven Rostedt (Red Hat) Date: Wed Sep 7 12:45:09 2016 -0400 tracing: Have

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:48:38 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > Will send another one soon. What about this? -- Steve commit 64cfdb9788bf3fb2bf6c30701fc3644f25e76df2 Author: Steven Rostedt (Red Hat) Date: Wed Sep 7 12:45:09 2016 -0400 tracing: Have max_latency be defined for HWLAT_TRACER as

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:34:24 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > Hm, now I get: > > ../kernel/trace/trace.c: In function 'tracing_set_tracer': > ../kernel/trace/trace.c:4850:3: error: implicit declaration of function > 'free_snapshot' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:34:24 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > Hm, now I get: > > ../kernel/trace/trace.c: In function 'tracing_set_tracer': > ../kernel/trace/trace.c:4850:3: error: implicit declaration of function > 'free_snapshot' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >free_snapshot(tr); >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On 09/07/16 09:44, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Thanks! > > Below is the fix. I'll have to add it. > > -- Steve > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/Kconfig b/kernel/trace/Kconfig > index 72c07c2ffd79..d9000a81960e 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/Kconfig > +++ b/kernel/trace/Kconfig > @@ -224,6 +224,7 @@

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On 09/07/16 09:44, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Thanks! > > Below is the fix. I'll have to add it. > > -- Steve > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/Kconfig b/kernel/trace/Kconfig > index 72c07c2ffd79..d9000a81960e 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/Kconfig > +++ b/kernel/trace/Kconfig > @@ -224,6 +224,7 @@

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 09:37:00 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 09/07/16 00:52, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160906: > > > > on i386: > > ../kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c: In function 'get_sample': > ../kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c:258:18: error:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 09:37:00 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 09/07/16 00:52, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160906: > > > > on i386: > > ../kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c: In function 'get_sample': > ../kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c:258:18: error: 'struct trace_array'

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On 09/07/16 00:52, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160906: > on i386: ../kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c: In function 'get_sample': ../kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c:258:18: error: 'struct trace_array' has no member named 'max_latency' if (sample > tr->max_latency)

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 7 (kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c)

On 09/07/16 00:52, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160906: > on i386: ../kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c: In function 'get_sample': ../kernel/trace/trace_hwlat.c:258:18: error: 'struct trace_array' has no member named 'max_latency' if (sample > tr->max_latency)

linux-next: Tree for Sep 7

Hi all, Changes since 20160906: The btrfs-kdave tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20160906. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The drm-intel tree gained conflicts against the drm tree. The kbuild tree still had its build warnings for PowerPC,

linux-next: Tree for Sep 7

Hi all, Changes since 20160906: The btrfs-kdave tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20160906. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The drm-intel tree gained conflicts against the drm tree. The kbuild tree still had its build warnings for PowerPC,