lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8
Hi Stephen,

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:21:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:35:36 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ingo,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:28:38 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.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 ...

Now that this is fixed and merged into the tip tree, I have removed the
perf tree from linux-next.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-26 00:41    [W:0.060 / U:6.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site