Re: linux-next: Tree for April 10 (ftrace)

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:14:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> [I have been asked to provide a summary of changes before the biolerplate
> so here goes (please tell me if this is what you want or not).  I am not
> going to try to describe the changes in the individual trees, just the
> interactions between them.]
> 
> Changes since next-20080410:
> 
> I no longer revert "x86: phase out forced inlining".
> There is a new conflict in arch/s390/lib/uaccess_pt.c between the s390 and
> 	kvm trees.
> There is a new trivial white space conflict in arch/ia64/kernel/mca.c.
> I no longer need to revert "wusb: add the wireless usb stack to Linux".
> 
> Today's Next/Trees file is lying: the x86-latest and sched-latest trees
> did not merge/build correctly so have not been included.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have created today's linux-next tree at
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git
> (tar balls at
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/sfr/linux-next/).

trace selftest build fails when CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES=n:

next-20080410/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c:413: error: implicit declaration of function 'rt_mutex_setprio'
make[3]: *** [kernel/trace/trace.o] Error 1

Possible fixes:

kernel/trace/Kconfig: SCHED_TRACER can depend on RT_MUTEXES
or there can be a stub for rt_mutex_setprio() when RT_MUTEXES=n

And kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c still needs #include <sched.h> added to it.

---
~Randy