From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 1 (xen_swiotllb) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:43:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20131101194324.GC15622@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <20131101191138.442028fb1f243c7f9c7f0844@canb.auug.org.au> <5273EFFA.1030400@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:34021 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751872Ab3KATo5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:44:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5273EFFA.1030400@infradead.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Randy Dunlap , Stefano Stabellini Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:16:26AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 11/01/13 01:11, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20131031: > > > > The squashfs tree gained a build failure so I used the version from > > next-20131031. > > > > The block tree gained conflicts against the f2fs, aio-direct and Linus' > > trees and a build failure and generated several warnings so I used the > > version from next-20131031. > > > > The dt-rh tree gained a conflict against the powerpc tree. > > > > The kvm-ppc tree gained a conflict against the powerpc tree. > > > > The leds tree gained a conflict against the powerpc tree. > > > > The tty tree lost its build failure. > > > on x86_64, when CONFIG_PCI is not enabled: > > arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `pci_xen_swiotlb_init_late': > (.text+0x102cc): undefined reference to `pci_request_acs' > arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `pci_xen_swiotlb_init': > (.init.text+0x3f6c): undefined reference to `pci_request_acs' Stefano, Please fix that. I think it is commit 83862ccfc0a03212fde43b4ac29c28381828768b Author: Stefano Stabellini Date: Thu Oct 10 13:40:44 2013 +0000 xen/arm,arm64: enable SWIOTLB_XEN that is causing this. Is it safe to add: depends on PCI back on it? Thanks. > > > -- > ~Randy