From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69DFA1A0179 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:17:00 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <1440242219.28532.2.camel@ellerman.id.au> Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the powerpc tree From: Michael Ellerman To: Vasant Hegde Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anshuman Khandual , Stewart Smith Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:16:59 +1000 In-Reply-To: <55D7F616.1060308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20150821182535.4423868e@canb.auug.org.au> <55D6E86E.105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1440200403.13795.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> <55D7F616.1060308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 09:39 +0530, Vasant Hegde wrote: > On 08/22/2015 05:10 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 14:29 +0530, Vasant Hegde wrote: > >> On 08/21/2015 01:55 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> After merging the nvdimm tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > >>> allyesconfig) failed like this: > >> > >> Stephen, > >> > >> Thanks for reporting! I checked powerpc tree.. This is because of commit > >> 8a8d9181 in powerpc tree.. Basically Michael missed one hunk (below hunk in > >> opal-api.h) > > > > Hmm, looks like it. > > > > I do remember the patch didn't apply to my tree, so I guess I accidentally > > dropped a hunk when I was forcing it to apply. > > Hmmm yeah..My patchset was based on upstream tree (4.2-rc7) instead of powerpc > next tree. That's OK. Usually that works fine, and usually when there is a conflict I can just fix it up. I'm not sure how I managed to drop that chunk, I'll have to go back and look at what I did. I suspect I hand-edited the patch, and if you do that wrong it can lead to patch just ignoring the rest of the patch. I probably should have just asked you to rebase on my next, but given it was already version 10 I didn't really feel like doing another revision :) > > Also we're obviously not building this in any of our defconfigs. Can you please > > send a patch to enable it for pseries_defconfig and ppc64_defconfig. > > Sure.. Will send separate patch. Thanks. cheers