From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the aio tree Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:55:15 +1100 Message-ID: <20160116095515.4d8a2e52@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20160112164034.0fe945a7@canb.auug.org.au> <20160115073944.GA24382@infradead.org> <20160115202316.59601869@canb.auug.org.au> <20160115092531.GA3626@infradead.org> <20160115151821.GE6330@kvack.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:48239 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750834AbcAOWzR (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:55:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160115151821.GE6330@kvack.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Ben, On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:18:21 -0500 Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:25:31AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:23:16PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Via the aio tree (git://git.kvack.org/~bcrl/aio-next.git#master) added > > > in July 2013 at Ben's request. The code was added to the aio tree in > > > Jan 12 (my time), but has never been in a published linux-next tree due > > > to the above build problem (I back out to the previous days version of > > > the aio tree). > > > > Well, it's code Ben posted a few days ago, which to say it mildly is > > rather controversial. It's cetainly not 4.5 material. > > It still needs the exposure. If it is not destined for v4.5, then it should not (yet) be in linux-next. It should wait until after v4.5-rc1 is released (the merge window closes). I would also argue that if the functionality itself is still under active review (and I haven't competely followed the discussion so I don't know where that is up to, but Christoph, at least, seems not completely convinced), then it should also not yet be in linux-next. > As for the build failure, it's a bug in the arch __get_user() implementation > that needs to be fixed. __get_user() should really be able to handle 64 bit > types. Yeah, it is a bit weird. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au