lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3.2 00/94] 3.2.62-rc1 review
From
Date
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 13:45 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 08:49:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 10:55 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 05:48:31PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.2.62 release.
> > > > There are 94 patches in this series, which will be posted as responses
> > > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > > let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Responses should be made by Wed Aug 06 17:00:00 UTC 2014.
> > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > >
> > > Build results:
> > > total: 111 pass: 105 fail: 6
> > > Failed builds:
> > > microblaze:mmu_defconfig
> > > microblaze:nommu_defconfig
> > > mips:allmodconfig
> > > sparc64:allmodconfig
> > > xtensa:defconfig
> > > xtensa:allmodconfig
> > >
> > > Qemu tests all passed.
> > >
> > > This is a significant improvement over the previous versions, where we used
> > > to see up to 10 build failures. The previously failing builds for unicore32
> > > and score now pass, as well as alpha:allmodconfig.
> >
> > Yes, I spent a little while digging out build fixes.
> >
> > I tried to fix the mips allmodconfig build, but failed - it needs
> > d3ce88431892, but that depends on 20082595d341, bef9ae3d883c, and
> > further changes I couldn't identify.
> >
> > I was unable to reproduce the sparc64 allmodconfig build failure, which
> > is in samples/hidraw - it built for me without warnings or errors.
> > Could you give me a bit more detail about the test setup?
> >
> Nothing special, really - Ubuntu 14.4 (previously 13.10), with gcc 4.6.3
> from kernel.org.
>
> This seems to be related to patch cbf1ef6 (sparc: use asm-generic version of
> types.h). After backporting it, the build passes for me. The backport is
> attached in case you want to give it a try.
[...]

OK, I've queued this up with a comment on how it differs from the
upstream version.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-11 04:01    [W:0.173 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site