[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160726072123.497240f2@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:21:23 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8
Hi Ingo,
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:35:36 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ingo,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:28:38 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > tools: Copy the bitops files accessed from the kernel and check for drift
> > >
> > > I think this has some needs some fixes for build breakage in linux-next ...
> >
> > Only if combined with a single pending change from the luto-next tree, right?
>
> ... which commits come through the x86 tree, so there's no way for Linus to be
> exposed to that, right?
>
> That is why I sent this without mentioning the conflict. Is there any other
> complication that I missed?
Actually, the perf tree on its own was enough to trigger the build
problem, the luto-next tree was just what initially triggered the build
failure in linux-next (I guess there is some missing dependency).
After the build failed, I started including the perf tree directly
before the tip tree and the build would fail when I merged that ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists