On Wed, 29 Jan 2025, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 08:53:37PM -0000, Patchwork wrote: >> == Series Details == >> >> Series: Regression on linux-next (next-20250120) (rev2) >> URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/143978/ >> State : failure >> >> == Summary == >> >> Error: patch https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/143978/revisions/2/mbox/ not applied >> Applying: Regression on linux-next (next-20250120) >> Using index info to reconstruct a base tree... >> M fs/debugfs/file.c >> Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge... >> Auto-merging fs/debugfs/file.c >> CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in fs/debugfs/file.c >> error: Failed to merge in the changes. >> hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch >> Patch failed at 0001 Regression on linux-next (next-20250120) >> When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue". >> If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead. >> To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort". >> Build failed, no error log produced > > Not to put too fine a point on that, but... which tree does it fail > to apply to, seeing that both mainline and -next are identical > in fs/debugfs/* and the patch in question applies cleanly to either? drm-tip branch of https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/tip It's a kind of "linux next for graphics" that we run pre-merge CI on. It doesn't have other linux-next stuff nor mainline until we backmerge -rc1. So it doesn't have the stuff you're fixing here either. Chaitanya & co additionally run tests on linux-next to hopefully catch regressions before they have a chance to wreak havoc in drm-tip. Come to think of it, would not be a bad idea to add the baseline info to these mails. Cc: the CI infra list. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
