Re: linux-next: Tree for Sept 14 (sata_highhbank)

2012-09-14 Thread Jeff Garzik
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Mark Langsdorf wrote: > Fix patch follows. Do I need to submit it as a separate patch or is this > sufficient? You appear to have submitted it as a separate patch just now ;p Will queue and push to libata-dev.git#upstream (and thus linux-next) Jeff -- To

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sept 14 (sata_highhbank)

2012-09-14 Thread Mark Langsdorf
On 09/14/2012 12:04 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 09/14/2012 12:38 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Changes since 201209013: >> > > > > on i386: > > CONFIG_SATA_HIGHBANK=m > # CONFIG_SATA_AHCI_PLATFORM is not set > > ERROR: "ahci_sdev_attrs" [drivers/ata/sata_highbank.ko] undefin

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sept 14 (sata_highhbank)

2012-09-14 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 09/14/2012 12:38 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 201209013: > on i386: CONFIG_SATA_HIGHBANK=m # CONFIG_SATA_AHCI_PLATFORM is not set ERROR: "ahci_sdev_attrs" [drivers/ata/sata_highbank.ko] undefined! ERROR: "ahci_shost_attrs" [drivers/ata/sata_highbank.ko] undefin

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sept 14

2012-09-14 Thread Sedat Dilek
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 201209013: > > The pci tree lost its conflicts. > > The i2c tree lost its conflict. > > The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net tree. > > The cgroup tree gained a build failure so I used the version fro

linux-next: Tree for Sept 14

2012-09-14 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Changes since 201209013: The pci tree lost its conflicts. The i2c tree lost its conflict. The net-next tree gained conflicts against the net tree. The cgroup tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20120913. The workqueues tree gained a conflict against the net tre