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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Stephen,

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