* Re: [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic
2012-08-15 9:54 [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic Ian Abbott
@ 2012-08-15 13:54 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-08-15 14:07 ` Fengguang Wu
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2012-08-15 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:54:15AM +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
> On 2012-08-15 02:02, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >Hi Ian,
> >
> >FYI, kernel build failed on
> >
> >tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git staging-next
> >head: 69af59970bec925d182ca5ebd80e643fdd90b1cc
> >commit: b7518888afc14e3d1e988837fef4471cd2b3c820 [70/73] staging: comedi: amplc_dio200: check bus type in detach routine
> >config: i386-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
> >
> >All related error/warning messages:
> >
> >drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c: In function 'dio200_detach':
> >drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'IS_ISA_BOARD' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1447:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'IS_PCI_BOARD' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> >
> >vim +1444 drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c
> > 1441 }
> > 1442 }
> > 1443 }
> >>1444 if (IS_ISA_BOARD(thisboard)) {
> > 1445 if (dev->iobase)
> > 1446 release_region(dev->iobase, DIO200_IO_SIZE);
> > 1447 } else if (IS_PCI_BOARD(thisboard)) {
>
> Well it looks like my patches got applied in the wrong order (1, 3,
> 2) on Greg's staging-next branch, but as long as all 3 patches are
> applied it ought to compile okay.
Argh, I did? Sorry about that. Nothing I can do about it now :(
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic
2012-08-15 9:54 [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic Ian Abbott
2012-08-15 13:54 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2012-08-15 14:07 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-15 14:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Fengguang Wu @ 2012-08-15 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
> > Well it looks like my patches got applied in the wrong order (1, 3,
> > 2) on Greg's staging-next branch, but as long as all 3 patches are
> > applied it ought to compile okay.
>
> Argh, I did? Sorry about that. Nothing I can do about it now :(
No problem. That reminds me to mark the staging-next branch as
non-rebaseable (which means the test system will silently ignore
intermediate errors in that branch).
Perhaps usb-next is non-rebaseable as well. Are there any more that
should be marked as non-rebaseable?
Thanks,
Fengguang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic
2012-08-15 9:54 [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic Ian Abbott
2012-08-15 13:54 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-08-15 14:07 ` Fengguang Wu
@ 2012-08-15 14:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-08-15 14:35 ` Fengguang Wu
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2012-08-15 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:07:36PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Well it looks like my patches got applied in the wrong order (1, 3,
> > > 2) on Greg's staging-next branch, but as long as all 3 patches are
> > > applied it ought to compile okay.
> >
> > Argh, I did? Sorry about that. Nothing I can do about it now :(
>
> No problem. That reminds me to mark the staging-next branch as
> non-rebaseable (which means the test system will silently ignore
> intermediate errors in that branch).
>
> Perhaps usb-next is non-rebaseable as well.
It shouldn't be, I hopefully do not mess up like this often.
Wait, what do you mean by "non-rebaseable"? I think you mean
"non-bisectable" right?
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic
2012-08-15 9:54 [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic Ian Abbott
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-15 14:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2012-08-15 14:35 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-15 14:47 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-08-15 14:50 ` Fengguang Wu
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Fengguang Wu @ 2012-08-15 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 07:10:01AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:07:36PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > Well it looks like my patches got applied in the wrong order (1, 3,
> > > > 2) on Greg's staging-next branch, but as long as all 3 patches are
> > > > applied it ought to compile okay.
> > >
> > > Argh, I did? Sorry about that. Nothing I can do about it now :(
> >
> > No problem. That reminds me to mark the staging-next branch as
> > non-rebaseable (which means the test system will silently ignore
> > intermediate errors in that branch).
> >
> > Perhaps usb-next is non-rebaseable as well.
>
> It shouldn't be, I hopefully do not mess up like this often.
OK. It's obvious to me that you have a good workflow and test system
to keep the error ratio extremely low.
> Wait, what do you mean by "non-rebaseable"? I think you mean
> "non-bisectable" right?
I mean, the branch will not be rebased to fixup errors in the middle.
Like the Linus' tree, and the tip/net trees. For these branches that
cannot afford to rebase, bug fixes always get appended rather than get
folded into the buggy commit.
For the non-rebaseable branches, I'll first build test the branch HEAD,
and iff it has build errors, go back to locate the first commit that
introduces the errors. This way, it can avoid sending out pointless
warnings about known bugs that are eventually fixed up in the HEAD.
Thanks,
Fengguang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic
2012-08-15 9:54 [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic Ian Abbott
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-15 14:35 ` Fengguang Wu
@ 2012-08-15 14:47 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-08-15 14:50 ` Fengguang Wu
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2012-08-15 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:35:05PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Wait, what do you mean by "non-rebaseable"? I think you mean
> > "non-bisectable" right?
>
> I mean, the branch will not be rebased to fixup errors in the middle.
> Like the Linus' tree, and the tip/net trees. For these branches that
> cannot afford to rebase, bug fixes always get appended rather than get
> folded into the buggy commit.
>
> For the non-rebaseable branches, I'll first build test the branch HEAD,
> and iff it has build errors, go back to locate the first commit that
> introduces the errors. This way, it can avoid sending out pointless
> warnings about known bugs that are eventually fixed up in the HEAD.
None of my trees and branches should ever be rebased, unless something
really wrong goes on. I think I've only had to ever do this once, for
one branch, in the past years that I've been doing this.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic
2012-08-15 9:54 [staging:staging-next 70/73] drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/amplc_dio200.c:1444:2: error: implic Ian Abbott
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-15 14:47 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2012-08-15 14:50 ` Fengguang Wu
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Fengguang Wu @ 2012-08-15 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 07:47:01AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:35:05PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Wait, what do you mean by "non-rebaseable"? I think you mean
> > > "non-bisectable" right?
> >
> > I mean, the branch will not be rebased to fixup errors in the middle.
> > Like the Linus' tree, and the tip/net trees. For these branches that
> > cannot afford to rebase, bug fixes always get appended rather than get
> > folded into the buggy commit.
> >
> > For the non-rebaseable branches, I'll first build test the branch HEAD,
> > and iff it has build errors, go back to locate the first commit that
> > introduces the errors. This way, it can avoid sending out pointless
> > warnings about known bugs that are eventually fixed up in the HEAD.
>
> None of my trees and branches should ever be rebased, unless something
> really wrong goes on. I think I've only had to ever do this once, for
> one branch, in the past years that I've been doing this.
Got it, thanks!
Thanks,
Fengguang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread