On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 04:34:41PM +0000, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 07/19/2013 06:10 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On 07/19/2013 05:50 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:25:24PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:45:25PM +0000, Shuah Khan wrote: > >>>> On 07/19/2013 09:34 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>>>> --------------- > >>>>> Note, this is the LAST 3.9-stable kernel release that I will be doing. > >>>>> Please move to the 3.10-stable branch as soon as possible. > >>>>> --------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.9.11 release. > >>>>> There are 38 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > >>>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > >>>>> let me know. > >>>>> > >>>>> Responses should be made by Sun Jul 21 05:20:01 UTC 2013. > >>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late. > >>>>> > >>>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > >>>>> kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.0/stable-review/patch-3.9.11-rc1.gz > >>>>> and the diffstat can be found below. > >>>>> > >>>>> thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> greg k-h > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Greg, > >>>> > >>>> Build failed with the following error: > >>>> > >>>> LD ipc/built-in.o > >>>> CC [M] fs/cifs/inode.o > >>>> fs/cifs/inode.c: In function ‘cifs_all_info_to_fattr’: > >>>> fs/cifs/inode.c:560:4: error: implicit declaration of function > >>>> ‘cifs_dbg’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > >>>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > >>>> make[2]: *** [fs/cifs/inode.o] Error 1 > >>>> make[1]: *** [fs/cifs] Error 2 > >>>> make: *** [fs] Error 2 > >>>> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > >>>> CC security/selinux/hooks.o > >>>> > >>>> I have CONFIG_CIFS=m in my config and CONFIG_CIFS_DEBUG is disabled. > >>>> cifs_dbg() is not defined. > >>> > >>> Ugh, I thought I fixed that one... I did it for the 3.4 and other > >>> trees, I'll go see what I did wrong... > >> > >> Ok, I've now fixed this, I don't know how it got through my tests, when > >> I tried it again, it failed. Before it wasn't, odd... > >> > >> Anyway, there is a new -rc2 kernel patch at: > >> kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.0/stable-review/patch-3.9.11-rc2.gz > >> > >> If you could test that out, I would appreciate it, to ensure I didn't do > >> anything stupid with this one too. > >> > >> Ick, handling 4 kernels at once really takes its toll on me, this was > >> not a good review cycle... > >> > >> thanks, > >> > >> greg k-h > >> > > > > Greg, > > > > rc2 compiled on x86-64. I will run cross-compile tests and boot tests > > later on today or tomorrow morning and report the results. > > > > -- Shuah > > > > Shuah Khan, Linux Kernel Developer - Open Source Group Samsung Research > > America (Silicon Valley) shuah.kh@xxxxxxxxxxx | (970) 672-0658 > > > > 3.9.11-rc2 boot tests passed on my test systems and cross-compile tests > passed. No regressions in dmesgs. Wonderful, thanks so much for testing and letting me know. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html