Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 24

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3308 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:43:53AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:16:02AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Thierry Reding
> >> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:02:22PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> >> On 10/24/2013 09:31 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> >> >Hi all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I've uploaded today's linux-next tree to the master branch of the
> >> >> >repository below:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >         git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/linux-next.git
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A next-20131024 tag is also provided for convenience.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Quite a few new conflicts. Some of them non-trivial. I've fixed another
> >> >> >set of build failures, so 32-bit and 64-bit allmodconfigs build fine on
> >> >> >x86. ARM and x86 default configurations also build fine. PowerPC is in
> >> >> >pretty bad shape, mostly due to some OF header rework going on.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmm ... I see
> >> >>
> >> >> Building arm:defconfig ... failed
> >> >> --------------
> >> >> Error log:
> >> >> drivers/built-in.o: In function `mmc_gpio_request_cd':
> >> >> clkdev.c:(.text+0x74cf8): undefined reference to `devm_gpio_request_one'
> >> >> make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1
> >> >>
> >> >> Otherwise pretty much the same as yesterday, with a build log of
> >> >>       total: 110 pass: 88 skipped: 4 fail: 18
> >> >>
> >> >> This is with "v3.12-rc5-7941-g765f88c".
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, I saw the devm_gpio_request_one() errors too. They happened for 3
> >> > boards on ARM I think. Must have forgotten to update the summary email.
> >> > I'll see if I can come up with a patch to fix the GPIO related build
> >> > failures, or at least report it to LinusW or Alexandre.
> >>
> >> Hmm.
> >>
> >> Please don't apply fixes like these directly to your tree, keep the
> >> broken parts (or drop the tree that introduced it). It makes the
> >> process of getting the fixes in where they really have to go much more
> >> error prone, since there's no way to track whether they have landed in
> >> the right place yet or not.
> >
> > I've found that fixing one build error often subsequent build failures,
> > which would go unnoticed if I dropped the trees or let the breakage
> > unfixed.
> 
> Yeah, that's what happened with the GPIO subsystem on this release --
> there are two build errors but your fix resolves one of them such at
> the other one is exposed. It makes it confusing to bisect down to root
> cause. I'd almost rather have your tree just being broken, but patches
> submitted and sent in to the maintainer in question if you want to get
> it fixed ASAP.

I guess I could probably just push the final merge commit as a tree, but
it would require me to very strongly resist my compulsive urge not to
push something that doesn't even build.

I suppose if we could write that down into some kind of rule I could go
look at it until the compulsiveness wears down... =)

> In particular, the gpio fix in the tree right now has no description, etc.

Yes, I know. FWIW I fixed that up properly in today's tree, which I'm
almost ready to push out.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]