linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 28 [ xhci build breakage ]

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]

Date:	Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:37:15 -0700
From:	Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasatkin@...sung.com>, sedat.dilek@...il.com,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 28 [ xhci build breakage ]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:18:24AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 09:59:38AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > Please trim your replies.
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:53:49PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:
> > > >>> That change seems to cause the problems:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> commit 0730d52a86919300a39a2be37f6c140997dfb82f
> > > >>> "xhci:prevent "callbacks suppressed" when debug is not enabled"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Sedat -
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/usb.git/commit/drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c?h=usb-next&id=0730d52a86919300a39a2be37f6c140997dfb82f
> > > >>>
> > > >> Hello,
> > > >>
> > > >> [PATCHv2 1/2] was not applied before.
> > > >> I pointed this out few hours ago...
> > 
> > So commit 0730d52a86919300a39a2be37f6c140997dfb82f 'xhci:prevent
> > "callbacks suppressed" when debug is not enabled' needed to be applied
> > after your first patch?  And basically applying that patch alone breaks
> > the build?
> > 
> > Ugh.  Sorry about this.  Greg, how do you want to handle this?
> 
> See my other response about your pull request, how about tacking it onto
> there?

Yeah, you could take the first patch and apply it to the usb-next tree.
There would still be a few patches where build breakage occurs, but that
will be there regardless of whether we revert that patch, apply the
first one, and then re-apply the second one.  So just applying the first
patch seems to be the better option.

Sarah Sharp
--
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/