From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mlx5: only register devlink when ethernet is available Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:02:33 +0200 Message-ID: <51058521.f6SstSCt2o@wuerfel> References: <20160615152816.2800830-1-arnd@arndb.de> <6330398.ySWGKSmLdn@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Saeed Mahameed Cc: Matan Barak , Leon Romanovsky , "David S. Miller" , Saeed Mahameed , Or Gerlitz , Doug Ledford , Eli Cohen , Majd Dibbiny , Linux Netdev List , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fengguang Wu List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Friday, June 17, 2016 5:50:14 PM CEST Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 7:04:54 PM CEST Saeed Mahameed wrote: > > Ok, I see. It would be nice if the process had a way to avoid build regressions > > in linux-next, in particular if you already have a fix by the time a patch > > that introduces a problem gets added. > > > > The reason we added this tree is to get 0-day testing but currently it > makes some unwanted noise > so we will remove it until we figure it out. I think you can simply ask Fengguang Wu to add your git tree to the list of trees he pulls from for the 0-day test bot. > > Can you check if the fix for the second problem correctly removes the > > unnecessary 64-bit division (as opposed to adding a call to div_s64() > > or do_div()), and if it removes all traces of 'struct timespec' again? > > > > Yes, same thing, already fixed, will reply to that thread. Ok, thanks for the confirmation! Arnd