On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:03:38PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:39:36PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann escreveu: > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 02:44:45PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:29:07AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > >> >> Em Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:15:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann escreveu: > > >> >> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:22 AM, gregkh <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > All now queued up in the stable trees, thanks. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Like 4.9.y it builds clean except for a couple of stack frame size warnings > > >> >> > and this one that continues to puzzle me. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > /bin/sh: 1: /home/buildslave/workspace/kernel-builder/arch/x86/defconfig/allmodconfig+CONFIG_OF=n/label/builder/next/build-x86/tools/objtool//fixdep: > > >> >> > Permission denied > > >> >> > > >> >> Jiri? Josh? > > >> > > > >> > hum, looks like it imight be related to this fix we did for perf: > > >> > abb26210a395 perf tools: Force fixdep compilation at the start of the build > > >> > > > >> > it's forcing fixdep to be build as first.. having it as a simple dependency > > >> > (which AFAICS is objtool case), the make -jX occasionaly raced on high cpu > > >> > servers, and executed unfinished binary, hence the permission fail > > >> > > >> It's probably another variation of this bug, but the commit you cite got merged > > >> into 4.10-rc1, while the problem still persists in mainline (4.11-rc2+). > > > > > > the problem is in objtool build right? the fix was for perf build > > > > Ah, got it. Yes, that must be it then. I supposed we coul duplicate what you > > did for perf in objtool, but a cleaner way would be to generalize it for all of > > tools/, right? right, the thing is that objtool is standalone application like perf, and before their builds can go the 'fixdep' needs to be there.. that's a condition to use the tools/build framework not sure how offensive it'd be to current Makefiles if we come with some generalized code to do that.. I'll think about it, but I think we might be better of the way we are now > > Humm, can't we have just one fixdep? we have.. it's just the matter who will build it first ;-) jirka