Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 26 (task_struct: cached_requested_key)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 26 (task_struct: cached_requested_key)
From: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:59:32 +0100
Cc: dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1d868a7a-0a15-e2b1-d73b-13d9229855ad@infradead.org>
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
References: <1d868a7a-0a15-e2b1-d73b-13d9229855ad@infradead.org> <20190626231617.1e858da3@canb.auug.org.au>

Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Multiple build errors like this when CONFIG_KEYS is not set/enabled:
> (this was seen on one i386 build)

Ah - I forgot to make CONFIG_KEYS_REQUEST_CACHE depend on CONFIG_KEYS.

David

References:
- Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 26 (task_struct: cached_requested_key)
  - From: Randy Dunlap
- linux-next: Tree for Jun 26
  - From: Stephen Rothwell

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] modules: fix compile error if don't have strict module rwx
Next by Date: next/pending-fixes boot: 231 boots: 4 failed, 225 passed with 1 offline, 1 untried/unknown (v5.2-rc6-136-gdba89a35f087)
Previous by thread: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 26 (security/integrity/ima/)
Next by thread: linux-next: Tree for Jun 26
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Kernel] [Linux USB Development] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCSI]

Powered by Linux