lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for Oct 24
    On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:43:53AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
    > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Thierry Reding
    > <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:16:02AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
    > >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Thierry Reding
    > >> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:02:22PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
    > >> >> On 10/24/2013 09:31 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
    > >> >> >Hi all,
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >I've uploaded today's linux-next tree to the master branch of the
    > >> >> >repository below:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/linux-next.git
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >A next-20131024 tag is also provided for convenience.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >Quite a few new conflicts. Some of them non-trivial. I've fixed another
    > >> >> >set of build failures, so 32-bit and 64-bit allmodconfigs build fine on
    > >> >> >x86. ARM and x86 default configurations also build fine. PowerPC is in
    > >> >> >pretty bad shape, mostly due to some OF header rework going on.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Hmm ... I see
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Building arm:defconfig ... failed
    > >> >> --------------
    > >> >> Error log:
    > >> >> drivers/built-in.o: In function `mmc_gpio_request_cd':
    > >> >> clkdev.c:(.text+0x74cf8): undefined reference to `devm_gpio_request_one'
    > >> >> make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Otherwise pretty much the same as yesterday, with a build log of
    > >> >> total: 110 pass: 88 skipped: 4 fail: 18
    > >> >>
    > >> >> This is with "v3.12-rc5-7941-g765f88c".
    > >> >
    > >> > Yeah, I saw the devm_gpio_request_one() errors too. They happened for 3
    > >> > boards on ARM I think. Must have forgotten to update the summary email.
    > >> > I'll see if I can come up with a patch to fix the GPIO related build
    > >> > failures, or at least report it to LinusW or Alexandre.
    > >>
    > >> Hmm.
    > >>
    > >> Please don't apply fixes like these directly to your tree, keep the
    > >> broken parts (or drop the tree that introduced it). It makes the
    > >> process of getting the fixes in where they really have to go much more
    > >> error prone, since there's no way to track whether they have landed in
    > >> the right place yet or not.
    > >
    > > I've found that fixing one build error often subsequent build failures,
    > > which would go unnoticed if I dropped the trees or let the breakage
    > > unfixed.
    >
    > Yeah, that's what happened with the GPIO subsystem on this release --
    > there are two build errors but your fix resolves one of them such at
    > the other one is exposed. It makes it confusing to bisect down to root
    > cause. I'd almost rather have your tree just being broken, but patches
    > submitted and sent in to the maintainer in question if you want to get
    > it fixed ASAP.

    I guess I could probably just push the final merge commit as a tree, but
    it would require me to very strongly resist my compulsive urge not to
    push something that doesn't even build.

    I suppose if we could write that down into some kind of rule I could go
    look at it until the compulsiveness wears down... =)

    > In particular, the gpio fix in the tree right now has no description, etc.

    Yes, I know. FWIW I fixed that up properly in today's tree, which I'm
    almost ready to push out.

    Thierry
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-10-25 16:41    [W:5.030 / U:0.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site