From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [000/121] 3.2.51-rc1 review Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 12:28:07 -0700 Message-ID: <52642EC7.7070901@roeck-us.net> References: <522C22DB.9080008@roeck-us.net> <522CAB38.2010909@roeck-us.net> <1382270174.2794.96.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <52640379.8070609@roeck-us.net> <1382292356.2794.116.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:59073 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751483Ab3JTT2O (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Oct 2013 15:28:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1382292356.2794.116.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Greg Ungerer , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , stable , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux/m68k On 10/20/2013 11:05 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2013-10-20 at 09:23 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 10/20/2013 04:56 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 09:52 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> On 09/08/2013 01:18 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>>> m68k-linux-ld: error: no memory region specified for loadable section >>>>>> `.note.gnu.build-id' >>>>> >>>>> I can't seem to find an explicit fix for that since v3.2. >>>>> Perhaps the fix is a side effect of f84f52a5c15db7d14a534815f27253b001735183 >>>>> ("m68knommu: clean up linker script"). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Kind of. Turns out it requires the following patches. >>>> >>>> 40c1b9cf (m68k: consolidate the vmlinux.lds linker scripts) >>>> ed865e31 (m68k: use non-MMU linker script for ColdFire MMU builds) >>>> f84f52a5 (m68knommu: clean up linker script) >>>> >>>> With those patches applied, all my m68k builds (mmu and nommu) pass with 3.2. >>> >>> I've queued these up for 3.2. The first looks quite a big change in >>> terms of lines, but most of that is just renaming a file so I think it's >>> within the spirit of the stable rules. The third is also pretty big as >>> m68knommu seems so broken in 3.2 that I suppose it is OK. >>> >>> Ben. >>> >> Hi Ben, >> >> is that in your patch list yet ? Just wondering, because the latest nommu build still failed. > > I've only just pushed them. > Yes, I see that m68k-nommu build failures are all gone now. Great! Thanks, Guenter