From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753904AbcGYVVc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:21:32 -0400
Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:41349 "EHLO ozlabs.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752882AbcGYVV1 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:21:27 -0400
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:21:23 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8
Message-ID: <20160726072123.497240f2@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20160725153536.GA5715@gmail.com>
References: <20160725082838.GA16210@gmail.com>
	<20160725235330.07c231a3@canb.auug.org.au>
	<20160725151520.GA5030@gmail.com>
	<20160725153536.GA5715@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Ingo,

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:35:36 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi Ingo,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:28:38 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > >       tools: Copy the bitops files accessed from the kernel and check for drift  
> > > 
> > > I think this has some needs some fixes for build breakage in linux-next ...  
> > 
> > Only if combined with a single pending change from the luto-next tree, right?  
> 
> ... which commits come through the x86 tree, so there's no way for Linus to be 
> exposed to that, right?
> 
> That is why I sent this without mentioning the conflict. Is there any other 
> complication that I missed?

Actually, the perf tree on its own was enough to trigger the build
problem, the luto-next tree was just what initially triggered the build
failure in linux-next (I guess there is some missing dependency).
After the build failed, I started including the perf tree directly
before the tip tree and the build would fail when I merged that ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell