linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the staging tree

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20120217001728.GA7746@kroah.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:17:28 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the staging tree

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:39:17AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:49:53 -0800 (PST) Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Huh?  Do you do allyesconfig/allmodconfig build testing after you pull
> > each individual tree or only after all trees are pulled?  (Apparently
> > the former, as otherwise the ordering shouldn't matter, right?)
> 
> From my daily release note:
> 
> "Between each merge, the tree was built with
> a ppc64_defconfig for powerpc and an allmodconfig for x86_64. After the
> final fixups (if any), it is also built with powerpc allnoconfig (32 and
> 64 bit), ppc44x_defconfig and allyesconfig (minus
> CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES - this fails its final link) and i386, sparc
> and sparc64 defconfig. These builds also have
> CONFIG_ENABLE_WARN_DEPRECATED, CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK and
> CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO disabled when necessary."
> 
> So yes, I build between each merge.  It allows me to isolate where
> problems are occurring so that they can be easily fixed in isolation.
> 
> > If you are doing the after-every-individual-tree build testing,
> > yes, if you could pull konrad's tmem tree first, that would
> > solve this problem I believe.**
> 
> Yes, I can do that (and will for today).  However, it does mean that the
> staging tree now cannot be merged into Linus' tree until after the tmem
> tree has been merged.   And if Linus decides not to take it, then Greg
> will have to remove these commits from his tree (or revert them) before
> he can get all the rest of the staging tree into Linus' tree.
> 
> > I suspect unit testing doesn't make much as much sense in staging
> > as it does in the core kernel.  I did testing of ramster in my
> 
> Of course it makes sense - at least at the "make sure it builds" level.
> 
> > public git tree (which includes the tmem patchset coming to you via
> > konrad) but, since it is a staging driver, the bits have to go
> > through Greg.
> 
> Maybe you should seek a dispensation from Greg to allow your ramster tree
> to exist independently in linux-next and be merged independently by
> Linus'.  Greg may want to keep watch in your tree, but that should not be
> much more effort than reviewing and applying your patches to the staging
> tree.

Ick, no, I'll just mark this as CONFIG_BROKEN for now, and things can be
fixed up later, during the 3.4 window as it should all settle down then.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/