[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160726064551.GA26401@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:45:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > 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 ...
>
> Now that this is fixed and merged into the tip tree, I have removed the perf
> tree from linux-next.
Ok, thanks - and sorry about this - I'll get the tooling fixes to Linus ASAP.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists