Hi Jeff,
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:48:02 -0400 Jeff Dike wrote:
>
> defconfig is good - that's my normal test config.
>
> > Currently plain "make ARCH=um" on PowerPC doesn't appear to work.
>
> No, it won't.
OK, thanks.
For reference, the result of our nightly builds (for UML) can be found
here:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:01:11PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On out PowerPC host I am using
>
> make ARCH=um SUBARCH=i386 CROSS_COMPILE=
>
> I am just building defconfig, would another config also be useful?
defconfig is good - that's my normal test config.
> Currently plain "make
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:51:55 -0400 Jeff Dike wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 06:49:01PM +0800, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> > make ARCH=um SUBARCH=ppc? Or something similar...
>
> It would need to be
> make ARCH=um
> with an x86 cross-compiler.
On out PowerPC host I am using
make ARC
Hi Boaz,
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:57:08 +0300 Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
> On 06/25/2009 06:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I applied the following patch to yesterday's linux-next and the i386 uml
> > defconfig build succeeded.
>
> Stephan Hi,
^
Stephen :-)
> Does this mean
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:06:27 -0700 Paul Menage wrote:
>
> I split it out into two patches and sent them about an hour ago. (One
> for mmu_context.h sent to Rusty and one for the other two fixes, sent
> to Linus)
Thanks for that. I see Linus has taken his.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 06:49:01PM +0800, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> make ARCH=um SUBARCH=ppc? Or something similar...
It would need to be
make ARCH=um
with an x86 cross-compiler.
Jeff
---
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:08:58AM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>On 06/25/2009 11:06 AM, Paul Menage wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> Paul? we did not receive any feedback from you
>>
>> I split it out into two patches and sent them about an hour ago. (One
>> for
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:52:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>Hi Amerigo,
>
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:57:35 +0800 Amerigo Wang
>wrote:
>>
>> Stephan, could you please also do compiling tests for UML in your -next tree?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>I would be happy to do this, all I need is for someone t
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 03:23:02PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>On 06/22/2009 05:46 AM, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:55:24PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
>>> UML: Fix some apparent bitrot
>>>
>>> - migration of net_device methods into net_device_ops
>>> - dma_sync_single() changes
On 06/25/2009 11:06 AM, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> Paul? we did not receive any feedback from you
>
> I split it out into two patches and sent them about an hour ago. (One
> for mmu_context.h sent to Rusty and one for the other two fixes, sent
> t
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
> Paul? we did not receive any feedback from you
I split it out into two patches and sent them about an hour ago. (One
for mmu_context.h sent to Rusty and one for the other two fixes, sent
to Linus)
Paul
On 06/25/2009 06:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I applied the following patch to yesterday's linux-next and the i386 uml
> defconfig build succeeded.
Stephan Hi,
Does this means that there will be a UML build every linux-next now?
>
> The last hunk of this patch (arch/um/include/
Hi all,
I applied the following patch to yesterday's linux-next and the i386 uml
defconfig build succeeded.
The last hunk of this patch (arch/um/include/asm/mmu_context.h) needs to
be notified to Rusty Russell (cc'd) since that only applied after merging
his tree.
The rest appears to apply ok to
On 06/22/2009 05:46 AM, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:55:24PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
>> UML: Fix some apparent bitrot
>>
>> - migration of net_device methods into net_device_ops
>> - dma_sync_single() changes
>> - cpumask_clear() -> cpumask_clear_cpu()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pau
On 06/22/2009 01:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Amerigo,
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:57:35 +0800 Amerigo Wang
> wrote:
>> Stephan, could you please also do compiling tests for UML in your -next tree?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> I would be happy to do this, all I need is for someone to tell me how to
Hi Amerigo,
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:57:35 +0800 Amerigo Wang
wrote:
>
> Stephan, could you please also do compiling tests for UML in your -next tree?
>
> Thanks!
I would be happy to do this, all I need is for someone to tell me how to
do this given we have PowerPC hosts so our X86 compilers are
On 06/20/2009 03:55 AM, Paul Menage wrote:
> UML: Fix some apparent bitrot
>
> - migration of net_device methods into net_device_ops
> - dma_sync_single() changes
> - cpumask_clear() -> cpumask_clear_cpu()
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Menage
>
> --
>
> Fixes the following compile errors:
>
> inclu
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:43:52AM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
>Stephan hi.
>
>The above breakage is the usual stuff we get every merge window. With people
>doing
>cross arch work and neglecting UML.
>
>Who is the person or people responsible for the large linux-next compilation
>rig?
>Is it pos
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:55:24PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
>UML: Fix some apparent bitrot
>
>- migration of net_device methods into net_device_ops
>- dma_sync_single() changes
>- cpumask_clear() -> cpumask_clear_cpu()
>
>Signed-off-by: Paul Menage
Looks good.
Acked-by: WANG Cong
>
>--
>
>F
UML: Fix some apparent bitrot
- migration of net_device methods into net_device_ops
- dma_sync_single() changes
- cpumask_clear() -> cpumask_clear_cpu()
Signed-off-by: Paul Menage
--
Fixes the following compile errors:
include/linux/dma-mapping.h:113: error: redefinition of 'dma_sync_single'
20 matches
Mail list logo
