Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 28 [ xhci build breakage ]

[Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:18:24AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 09:59:38AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > Please trim your replies.
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:53:49PM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:
> > > >>> That change seems to cause the problems:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> commit 0730d52a86919300a39a2be37f6c140997dfb82f
> > > >>> "xhci:prevent "callbacks suppressed" when debug is not enabled"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Sedat -
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/usb.git/commit/drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c?h=usb-next&id=0730d52a86919300a39a2be37f6c140997dfb82f
> > > >>>
> > > >> Hello,
> > > >>
> > > >> [PATCHv2 1/2] was not applied before.
> > > >> I pointed this out few hours ago...
> > 
> > So commit 0730d52a86919300a39a2be37f6c140997dfb82f 'xhci:prevent
> > "callbacks suppressed" when debug is not enabled' needed to be applied
> > after your first patch?  And basically applying that patch alone breaks
> > the build?
> > 
> > Ugh.  Sorry about this.  Greg, how do you want to handle this?
> 
> See my other response about your pull request, how about tacking it onto
> there?

Yeah, you could take the first patch and apply it to the usb-next tree.
There would still be a few patches where build breakage occurs, but that
will be there regardless of whether we revert that patch, apply the
first one, and then re-apply the second one.  So just applying the first
patch seems to be the better option.

Sarah Sharp