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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1450018 > unrolled thread

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

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 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

#1450018 — Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v4.8

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#1450091

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

* 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

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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web