Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1449501 > unrolled thread

Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8

Started byStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
First post2016-07-25 16:00 +0200
Last post2016-07-26 08:50 +0200
Articles 11 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-07-25 16:00 +0200
    Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> - 2016-07-25 17:00 +0200
    Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-07-25 17:20 +0200
      Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-07-25 17:40 +0200
        Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-07-25 23:30 +0200
          Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-07-25 23:50 +0200
            Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-07-26 00:10 +0200
              Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-07-26 08:40 +0200
                Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-07-26 23:50 +0200
          Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-07-26 00:00 +0200
            Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-07-26 08:50 +0200

#1449501 — Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2016-07-25 16:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8
Message-ID<rYOAh-5eA-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
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 ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1449557

FromArnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Date2016-07-25 17:00 +0200
Message-ID<rYPwn-5P2-43@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1449501
Em Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:53:30PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell escreveu:
> 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 ...

yeah, which are in my perf/core branch going thru build tests on various
systems, will go to Ingo today.

- Arnaldo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1449565

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2016-07-25 17:20 +0200
Message-ID<rYPPH-6aR-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1449501
* 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?

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1449593

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2016-07-25 17:40 +0200
Message-ID<rYQ93-6hx-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1449565
* 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?

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1449931

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2016-07-25 23:30 +0200
Message-ID<rYVBM-1gH-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1449593
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 ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1450018

FromLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date2016-07-25 23:50 +0200
Message-ID<rYVV9-1ty-79@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1449931
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> 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 ...

Ugh. It's merged in my tree now, because I thought it was ok. Can
somebody point me to the fix?

              Linus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1450091

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2016-07-26 00:10 +0200
Message-ID<rYWev-1Uf-73@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1450018
Hi Linus,

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:45:53 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > 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 ...  
> 
> Ugh. It's merged in my tree now, because I thought it was ok. Can
> somebody point me to the fix?

I only affects cross building of the objtool and vdso2c tools (which is
how I work).  The latest version of the perf/core branch in the tip
tree now has all the fixes, so I assume that Ingo will send another
pull request.

Unfortunately, that means that your tree is broken for me this
morning ... but I will cope, I guess.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1450406

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2016-07-26 08:40 +0200
Message-ID<rZ4c1-70s-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1450091
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Linus,
> 
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:45:53 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 ...  
> > 
> > Ugh. It's merged in my tree now, because I thought it was ok. Can
> > somebody point me to the fix?
> 
> I only affects cross building of the objtool and vdso2c tools (which is
> how I work).  The latest version of the perf/core branch in the tip
> tree now has all the fixes, so I assume that Ingo will send another
> pull request.

Yes, I'll send this ASAP.

> Unfortunately, that means that your tree is broken for me this
> morning ... but I will cope, I guess.

That's weird, I pushed out the fix from Arnaldo yesterday (about 8 hours ago) 
which should merge fine with Linus's tree and make your tooling combination work.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1450932

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2016-07-26 23:50 +0200
Message-ID<rZioF-7lp-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1450406
Hi Ingo,

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:38:17 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > I only affects cross building of the objtool and vdso2c tools (which is
> > how I work).  The latest version of the perf/core branch in the tip
> > tree now has all the fixes, so I assume that Ingo will send another
> > pull request.  
> 
> Yes, I'll send this ASAP.

Thanks

> > Unfortunately, that means that your tree is broken for me this
> > morning ... but I will cope, I guess.  
> 
> That's weird, I pushed out the fix from Arnaldo yesterday (about 8 hours ago) 
> which should merge fine with Linus's tree and make your tooling combination work.

My point was only about Linus' tree itself which I build on its own for
a baseline each morning.  Yesterday, I merged your perf/core branch
into Linus' tree before I built it, which worked fine, thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1450050

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2016-07-26 00:00 +0200
Message-ID<rYW4O-1xV-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1449931
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1450415

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2016-07-26 08:50 +0200
Message-ID<rZ4lI-744-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1450050
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web