Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
From: Stephen Rothwell
Date: Mon Jan 20 2014 - 08:11:04 EST
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:46:55 +0100 Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:46:06 +0100 Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> I hope it doesn't look quite like that, next-20140117 is -ENOBOOT on
> >>> Q6600 box. See below for an alternative.
> >>> idle: kill unnecessary mwait_idle() resched IPIs
> >> OK, so despite even further discussion, I have applied this as a merge
> >> fix patch for today. Let me know when it is all sorted out.
> > Where is this fix?
> > ( Browsing Linux-next remote GIT repository online. )
> > 2x NOPE for me.
> > - Sedat -
> >  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/?id=next-20140120&qt=grep&q=mwait_idle
> >  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/sfr/next-fixes.git
> Hmmm... Found this in Next/merge.log
> +$ git am -3 ../patches/0001-x86-idle-mwait_idle-merge-update.patch
> +Applying: idle: kill unnecessary mwait_idle() resched IPIs
> +$ git reset HEAD^
> +Unstaged changes after reset:
> +M arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> +M arch/x86/kernel/process.c
You missed the next three lines:
$ git add -A .
$ git commit -v -a --amend
[master 65d9a14a9a41] Merge remote-tracking branch 'tip/auto-latest'
> Is this a local patch not shipped in the Linux-next (remote) GIT repo?
> Why is this not in your next-fixes GIT repo?
Its part of the conflict resolution for the merge of the tip tree. It
cannot go into my fixes tree - that is for fixes to bugs in Linus' tree
until they are integrated there. The tip and pm trees are both fine on
their own, but combined they don't. So this fix has to go into the actual
merge commit for the merge of the later tree. When Linus' merges the
later of these trees he will also need this fix - or a better one - which
is what is still under discussion.
> A bit confused about your -next policies,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Description: PGP signature