On 03/05/2019 00:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Thu, 2 May 2019 22:09:49 +0200 Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I picked the patch and it was merged it via the tip tree [1] as
>> requested by Marc Zyngier [2] and notified [3].
>>
>> In any case, this patch should have go throu
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, 2 May 2019 22:09:49 +0200 Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
>
> Yes, I picked the patch and it was merged it via the tip tree [1] as
> requested by Marc Zyngier [2] and notified [3].
>
> In any case, this patch should have go through my tree initially, so if
> it is found somewhere else
On 02/05/2019 21:08, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 09:00:58PM +0200, Anders Roxell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 12:10, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Changes since 20190501:
>>>
>>> The kbuild tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
>>>
>>> The f2fs tre
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 09:00:58PM +0200, Anders Roxell wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 12:10, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since 20190501:
> >
> > The kbuild tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
> >
> > The f2fs tree gained a build failure for which I applied a pa
On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 12:10, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20190501:
>
> The kbuild tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
>
> The f2fs tree gained a build failure for which I applied a patch.
>
> The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree.
>
> The pidfd
Hi all,
Changes since 20190501:
The kbuild tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The f2fs tree gained a build failure for which I applied a patch.
The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree.
The pidfd tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree.
The akpm-current tree ga
On 05/02/2018 02:06 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:59:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 05/02/2018 08:43 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:59:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 08:43 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Changes since 20180501:
> >>>
> >>
> >> on x
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since 20180501:
> >
>
> on x86_64 randconfig:
>
> CC fs/cifs/smbencrypt.o
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.o: warning: objtool: return_hosed_msg()+0x0:
On 05/01/2018 11:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20180501:
>
on x86_64 randconfig:
CC fs/cifs/smbencrypt.o
drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.o: warning: objtool: return_hosed_msg()+0x0:
infinite recursion (objtool bug!)
drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.o: warning: objtoo
Hi all,
Changes since 20180501:
Added tree: pcmcia
Removed tree: syscalls (finished with)
The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree.
The bpf-next tree gained a conflict against the bpf tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3508
3343 files changed, 134142 insertions
On 05/02/2017 11:34 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/01/17 23:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please do not add any v4.13 destined material in your linux-next
>> included branches until after v4.12-rc1 has been released.
>>
>> Changes since 20170501:
>>
> on x86_64:
>
> drivers/built-in
On 05/01/17 23:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please do not add any v4.13 destined material in your linux-next
> included branches until after v4.12-rc1 has been released.
>
> Changes since 20170501:
>
on x86_64:
drivers/built-in.o: In function `set_affinity_irq':
events_base.c:(.te
Hi all,
Please do not add any v4.13 destined material in your linux-next
included branches until after v4.12-rc1 has been released.
Changes since 20170501:
The tip tree gained a build failure due to an interaction with Linus'
tree for which I applied a merge fix patch.
The drivers-x86 tree gain
Hi all,
On Mon, 2 May 2016 22:07:45 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> This comes from a bad automatic merge resolution between commit
>
> d101a125954e ("fs: add file_dentry()")
>
> from Linus' tree (introduced before v4.5-rc3) and commit
Clearly
On (05/02/16 22:07), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
[..]
> > The issue is that 2 macros have the same value:
> >
> > #define DCACHE_OP_REAL 0x0800
> >
> > #define DCACHE_PAR_LOOKUP 0x0800 /* being looked up
> > (with parent locked shared) */
> >
> > Verified with
Hi Mateusz,
On Mon, 2 May 2016 12:33:54 +0200 Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:15:24PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (05/02/16 18:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Changes since 20160429
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > [0.368791] [ c
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:15:24PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/02/16 18:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since 20160429
>
> Hello,
>
> [0.368791] [ cut here ]
> [0.368850] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at fs/dcache.c:1688 d_set_d_op+
On (05/02/16 18:40), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20160429
Hello,
[0.368791] [ cut here ]
[0.368850] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at fs/dcache.c:1688 d_set_d_op+0x5e/0xcc
[0.368911] Modules linked in:
[0.369002] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper
Hi all,
Changes since 20160429:
The powerpc tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The vfs tree gained conflicts against Linus'and the overlayfs trees and
a build failure for which I applied a merge fix patch.
The tpmdd tree still had its build failure for which I added a fix patch.
The r
Hi all,
This tree still fails (more than usual) the powerpc allyesconfig build.
Changes since 20140501:
The powerpc tree still had its build failure.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 3658
3376 files changed, 122496 insertions(+), 79513 deletions(-)
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:19:14AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/02/13 14:26, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 05/02/13 00:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
> >> branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
> >>
>
On 05/02/13 14:26, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/02/13 00:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
>> branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
>>
>> Changes since 20130501:
>>
>
>
> when CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO=m and CONFIG_SAMS
On 05/02/13 00:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
> branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
>
> Changes since 20130501:
>
when TOSHIBA_ACPI=y and SERIO_I8042=m:
drivers/built-in.o: In function `toshiba_acpi_remove
On 05/02/13 00:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
> branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
>
> Changes since 20130501:
>
when CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO=m and CONFIG_SAMSUNG_LAPTOP=y:
drivers/built-in.o: In function `sam
Hi all,
Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included
branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released.
Changes since 20130501:
The vfs tree gained conflicts against Linus' tree.
The akpm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree and lost a lot of
patches that turned up elsew
26 matches
Mail list logo
