Am Mittwoch, 21 September 2016, 10:27:46 schrieb Michael Ellerman: > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:00:32 +1000 Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Ah yep looks like that's the problem, patch below should fix it? > > > > Yeah, I am just going to (logically) run "sed > > 's/CONFIG_WORD_SIZE/BITS/'" > > over the tree during the merge of the apm-current tree today. > > > >> I think I'd actually prefer it if purgatory didn't redefine the CFLAGS > >> from scratch, so I'll see if Thiago can do that and send a new version. > > > > That could be better, but there are still some additions of > > CONFIG_WORD_SIZE elsewhere :-( > > I don't see any others in yesterday's next? This kbuild failure is one case: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-September/148898.html elf_util_64.o is only built if CONFIG_WORD_SIZE=64. This is affects the bisectabilty of many patches in the kexec_file_load series. Should I post a new version rebased on powerpc/next? -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
