Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2 (mtd/nand/: ECC_SW_*)

2020-11-02 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 11/1/20 9:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20201030: > on x86_64: WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for MTD_NAND_ECC Depends on [n]: MTD [=m] && MTD_NAND_CORE [=n] Selected by [m]: - MTD_NAND_ECC_SW_HAMMING [=y] && MTD [=m] - MTD_NAND_ECC_SW_BCH [

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2 [drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.ko]

2020-11-02 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 11/1/20 9:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20201030: > on x86_64: when CONFIG_NET is not enabled: ERROR: modpost: "mac_pton" [drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.ko] undefined! Should VDPA_SIM, IFCVF, MLX5_VDPA_NET depend on NET or NETDEVICES? -- ~Randy Reported-b

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2 (regulator/qcom-rpmh-regulator.c)

2020-11-01 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 11/1/20 9:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20201030: > on i386: CONFIG_QCOM_RPMH=m CONFIG_REGULATOR_QCOM_RPMH=y ld: drivers/regulator/qcom-rpmh-regulator.o: in function `rpmh_regulator_send_request': qcom-rpmh-regulator.c:(.text+0xcf): undefined reference to `rpmh

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2 (compiler-gcc.h)

2018-11-03 Thread Miguel Ojeda
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:56 PM Randy Dunlap wrote: > > Hi, > > on i386 or x86_64, with gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.5, I am seeing this problem: > > In file included from :0:0: > ../include/linux/compiler-gcc.h:75:45: internal compiler error: in > function_and_variable_visibility, at ipa.c:825 > #define

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2 (compiler-gcc.h)

2018-11-02 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 11/2/18 6:57 AM, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:22 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >> Its always OK (and actually useful) to move your branch head up to >> where Linus merged it (this is usually a fast forward anyway) since >> that doesn't add any new code to linux-next to conflic

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2

2018-11-02 Thread Miguel Ojeda
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:22 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Its always OK (and actually useful) to move your branch head up to > where Linus merged it (this is usually a fast forward anyway) since > that doesn't add any new code to linux-next to conflict with code that > is still pending to be merg

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2

2018-11-02 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Miguel, On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 11:44:07 +0100 Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:33 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Please do not add any v4.21/v5.1 code to your linux-next included trees > > until after the merge window closes. > > Is it OK to move forward the branch up to t

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2

2018-11-02 Thread Miguel Ojeda
Hi Stephen, On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:33 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > Please do not add any v4.21/v5.1 code to your linux-next included trees > until after the merge window closes. Is it OK to move forward the branch up to the point where it landed in mainline, no? What about change

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2

2015-11-02 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:30:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > So I guess I need that (or something similar) in linux-next until these > trees are merged. > Yeah, the fixup looks fine to me. It will be something that Linus will need to do himself when he hits the conflict too. -- Steve -- To uns

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2

2015-11-01 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Sergey, [Excess quoted for new cc's] On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:58:16 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > unregister_trace_sched_switch/register_trace_prio_sched_switch/etc. > (see the log below. 80-cols unfriendly. sorry.) > expect proto to contain 'bool preempt' > > TRACE_EVENT(sched_switch, >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 2

2015-11-01 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (11/02/15 15:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20151101: > Hi, unregister_trace_sched_switch/register_trace_prio_sched_switch/etc. (see the log below. 80-cols unfriendly. sorry.) expect proto to contain 'bool preempt' TRACE_EVENT(sched_switch, TP_PROTO(bool