From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:23:25 +0200 Message-ID: <20080606082325.GA10826@elte.hu> References: <20080605175217.cee497f3.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080605195604.41623687.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080606071707.GB9708@elte.hu> <20080606072536.GA19334@elte.hu> <20080606003327.9ac0e91b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080606074137.GA28962@elte.hu> <20080606004743.a78180c3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:47476 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758583AbYFFIXo (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2008 04:23:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080606004743.a78180c3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , the arch/x86 maintainers * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > i just successfully booted your config on 4 separate 64-bit > > > > test-systems with latest -tip. (two dual-core boxes, a quad and a > > > > 16way box) Latest -tip includes sched-next and x86-next as well. > > > > > > What's the point in testing a radically differenet kernel from the one > > > which is known to be crashing? > > > > well, you Cc:-ed me, so i wanted to exclude -tip's 750+ commits in this > > area (scheduling, 64-bit x86) in the first step. > > What's the relationship between -tip and linux-next? most of the -tip topics (there are 75 of them currently) are present in linux-next - about ~70% of all -tip commits are in linux-next already. The stuff that is not in linux-next yet is either because it's: miscellany fixes (i.e. intentionally grabbed out-of-tree to make our tests work better), not cooked enough yet, or because we are still working it out - tip is less than a month old still. in general the rule is that if there's anything we want to push upstream, it will show up in linux-next. > The crash seems to be due to sched_domains startup ordering, at a guess. > > My third bisect iteration has hit this: > > arch/x86/mm/kmmio.c: In function 'get_kmmio_probe': > arch/x86/mm/kmmio.c:85: error: implicit declaration of function 'list_for_each_entry_rcu' > arch/x86/mm/kmmio.c:85: error: 'list' undeclared (first use in this function) hm, which commit is this exactly? I've never hit it myself in bisection (and there are days when i bisect -tip several times). We'll respin tip/tracing/mmiotrace if it's bisection-hostile. You can probably nudge it into building via "git-bisect next". Ingo