[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+icZUXFZgN6NhqY_Nz+symXc8T8s=suobfnr=2wVdTc6w-O0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:21:56 +0100
From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc: linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, linux-aio@...ck.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 24
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 07:32:17AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Changes since 20160223:
>> >
>> ...
>> > The aio tree still had a build failure so I used the version from
>> > next-20160111.
>> >
>>
>> Might be good to poke the maintainer as I am seeing this for a long
>> time in Linux-next.
>
> These are architecture code related build failures that arch maintainers
> need to fix. Avoiding pulling the tree allows people to ignore the issue,
> which isn't going to get things fixed. I provided an example how to
> implement the 64 bit __get_user() without generating warnings, and it is
> now up to maintainers to adapt it for their architecture.
>
Hi Ben,
not seeing this anymore.
How was that solved?
Regards,
- Sedat -
Powered by blists - more mailing lists