From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762860AbbA3RaY (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:54036 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762698AbbA3RaU (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:30:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:30:04 -0800 From: Guenter Roeck To: Oleksij Rempel Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds , Boris Brezillon Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 30 (build failures) Message-ID: <20150130173004.GB12367@roeck-us.net> References: <20150130180209.2bd86cc4@canb.auug.org.au> <20150130142520.GA6872@roeck-us.net> <54CBAAF6.6030106@rempel-privat.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54CBAAF6.6030106@rempel-privat.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Authenticated_sender: guenter@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-CTCH-PVer: 0000001 X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.54CBBFAC.014F,ss=1,re=0.001,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-CTCH-Score: 0.001 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: C_4847, X-CTCH-SenderID: linux@roeck-us.net X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 8 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: mailgid no entry from get_relayhosts_entry X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > Am 30.01.2015 um 15:25 schrieb Guenter Roeck: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 06:02:09PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Changes since 20150129: > >> > >> The arm-soc gained conflicts against the arm-current and arm trees. > >> > >> The spi tree gained a build failure for which I reverted a commit. > >> > >> Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 6300 > >> 6348 files changed, 255117 insertions(+), 131620 deletions(-) > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Build failures below. I copied the culprits (including Linus ;-). > > > > Guenter > > > > === > > Building arc:defconfig ... failed > > Building arc:tb10x_defconfig ... failed > > -------------- > > Error log: > > arch/arc/mm/fault.c: In function 'do_page_fault': > > arch/arc/mm/fault.c:164: error: 'VM_FAULT_SIGSEV' undeclared > > > > Typo. Caused by 33692f27597f ("vm: add VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV handling support"), > > from mainline. I submitted a patch. > > > > === > > Building mips:allmodconfig ... failed > > -------------- > > Error log: > > > > fs/built-in.o: In function `dax_fault': > > (.text+0x5e284): undefined reference to `copy_user_page' > > > > Caused by 4927b7d77c001 ("dax,ext2: replace the XIP page fault handler with the > > DAX page fault handler"). Looks like copy_user_page does not exist in mips. > > > > === > > Building sparc64:allmodconfig ... failed > > -------------- > > Error log: > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `asm9260_timer_init': > > asm9260_timer.c:(.init.text+0x60d4): undefined reference to `of_io_request_and_map' > > > > Caused by e4940cd76934 ("ARM: clocksource: add asm9260_timer driver"). > > of_io_request_and_map does not exist for the sparc architecture. > > Maybe that driver should depend on ARM or at least on !SPARC ? > > White listing will be easiest way. Should i send patch for it, or it is > better to fixup existing patch? > That depends on you and the clocksource maintainer, really. Some maintainers don't rebase their branches to fix already applied patches, others do. Thanks, Guenter