[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2398986.v4utNoeCOx@hactar>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:12:07 -0300
From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree
Am Mittwoch, 21 September 2016, 10:27:46 schrieb Michael Ellerman:
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:00:32 +1000 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
wrote:
> >> Ah yep looks like that's the problem, patch below should fix it?
> >
> > Yeah, I am just going to (logically) run "sed
> > 's/CONFIG_WORD_SIZE/BITS/'"
> > over the tree during the merge of the apm-current tree today.
> >
> >> I think I'd actually prefer it if purgatory didn't redefine the CFLAGS
> >> from scratch, so I'll see if Thiago can do that and send a new version.
> >
> > That could be better, but there are still some additions of
> > CONFIG_WORD_SIZE elsewhere :-(
>
> I don't see any others in yesterday's next?
This kbuild failure is one case:
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-September/148898.html
elf_util_64.o is only built if CONFIG_WORD_SIZE=64. This is affects the
bisectabilty of many patches in the kexec_file_load series. Should I post a
new version rebased on powerpc/next?
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists