linux-kernel - Re: DRM: urgent v4.9-rc6 build regression: master build: 2 failures 1 warnings (v4.9-rc5-213-g961b708)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:46:06 +0800
From:   CK Hu <ck.hu@...iatek.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-build-reports@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Bibby Hsieh <bibby.hsieh@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: DRM: urgent v4.9-rc6 build regression: master build: 2 failures
 1 warnings (v4.9-rc5-213-g961b708)

Hi, Arnd:

I've made a mistake that I've tried to build these patches on v4.9-rc1,
but I does not set CONFIG_DRM_MEDIATEK=y, therefore I didn't find out
these build fails. Now I fix the config problem, and I think I should
build these patches on latest kernel version even though patch's owner
test on old kernel version. I wish this flow would make things better.

It's ok that you just revert these two patches. I've fixed build fail
and will request pull later.

Regards,
CK

On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 16:24 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 8:50:05 PM CET Dave Airlie wrote:
> > 
> > Arnd could you send a git pull with the two reverts, with my Acked-by on
> > it? I won't be in a place to do it for 8-9hrs.
> 
> I don't think it's that urgent, as long as we make sure it's fixed in the
> next -rc. I've sent out the reverts as patches with a little more information
> in the changelog: it turns out that they are actually broken on linux-next too,
> they had just not made it in there, and one of the two actually did build
> on older kernels.
> 
> I think what happened here is that the fixes were tested on a v4.4 kernel
> and blindly forward-ported. It probably makes sense to look at the
> entire series again in case another one of them is broken.
> 
> Philipp, Hu, Bibby, could one of you have another look?
> 
> 	Arnd