On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:43:53AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Thierry Reding > <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:16:02AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Thierry Reding > >> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:02:22PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> >> On 10/24/2013 09:31 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > >> >> >Hi all, > >> >> > > >> >> >I've uploaded today's linux-next tree to the master branch of the > >> >> >repository below: > >> >> > > >> >> > git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/linux-next.git > >> >> > > >> >> >A next-20131024 tag is also provided for convenience. > >> >> > > >> >> >Quite a few new conflicts. Some of them non-trivial. I've fixed another > >> >> >set of build failures, so 32-bit and 64-bit allmodconfigs build fine on > >> >> >x86. ARM and x86 default configurations also build fine. PowerPC is in > >> >> >pretty bad shape, mostly due to some OF header rework going on. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Hmm ... I see > >> >> > >> >> Building arm:defconfig ... failed > >> >> -------------- > >> >> Error log: > >> >> drivers/built-in.o: In function `mmc_gpio_request_cd': > >> >> clkdev.c:(.text+0x74cf8): undefined reference to `devm_gpio_request_one' > >> >> make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 > >> >> > >> >> Otherwise pretty much the same as yesterday, with a build log of > >> >> total: 110 pass: 88 skipped: 4 fail: 18 > >> >> > >> >> This is with "v3.12-rc5-7941-g765f88c". > >> > > >> > Yeah, I saw the devm_gpio_request_one() errors too. They happened for 3 > >> > boards on ARM I think. Must have forgotten to update the summary email. > >> > I'll see if I can come up with a patch to fix the GPIO related build > >> > failures, or at least report it to LinusW or Alexandre. > >> > >> Hmm. > >> > >> Please don't apply fixes like these directly to your tree, keep the > >> broken parts (or drop the tree that introduced it). It makes the > >> process of getting the fixes in where they really have to go much more > >> error prone, since there's no way to track whether they have landed in > >> the right place yet or not. > > > > I've found that fixing one build error often subsequent build failures, > > which would go unnoticed if I dropped the trees or let the breakage > > unfixed. > > Yeah, that's what happened with the GPIO subsystem on this release -- > there are two build errors but your fix resolves one of them such at > the other one is exposed. It makes it confusing to bisect down to root > cause. I'd almost rather have your tree just being broken, but patches > submitted and sent in to the maintainer in question if you want to get > it fixed ASAP. I guess I could probably just push the final merge commit as a tree, but it would require me to very strongly resist my compulsive urge not to push something that doesn't even build. I suppose if we could write that down into some kind of rule I could go look at it until the compulsiveness wears down... =) > In particular, the gpio fix in the tree right now has no description, etc. Yes, I know. FWIW I fixed that up properly in today's tree, which I'm almost ready to push out. Thierry
Attachment:
pgphzOh31JEuE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
