From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc tree Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:57:34 -0300 Message-ID: <20160722195734.GK18962@kernel.org> References: <20160720095333.3034531c@canb.auug.org.au> <20160720025202.GB18962@kernel.org> <20160721092950.0047531e@canb.auug.org.au> <20160721131248.GH18962@kernel.org> <20160722092302.5a0a1544@canb.auug.org.au> <20160722034118.guckaniobf3f7czc@treble> <20160722143739.GI18962@kernel.org> <20160722191920.ej62fnspnqurbaa7@treble> <20160722193655.GJ18962@kernel.org> <20160722194416.pxbsnyhaqcyoigsj@treble> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:45976 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750989AbcGVT5i (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:57:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160722194416.pxbsnyhaqcyoigsj@treble> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Andy Lutomirski , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Em Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 04:36:55PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:19:20PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu: > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:37:39AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > I.e. with the two patches I mentioned, that are equivalent to the last patch I > > > > sent to Stephen for testing, we would end up with HOSTARCH=powerpc and > > > > ARCH=x86, no? > > > Thanks for spelling it out, that helped a lot. > > Glad you liked it, I had to do it for my own sanity :-) > > And something that gave me mixed feelings was an e-mail from the kbuild > > test bot that noticed my perf/core changes and said that the build was > > broken for "make ARCH=x86_64", so I had to reinstate this part: > > ifeq ($(ARCH),x86_64) > > ARCH := x86 > > endif > > Because, as you say, 'make ARCH=x86' works :-\ I think it will not be > > needed with your patch, right? I'm checking your patch below right now, > Yeah, that shouldn't be needed with my patch. I think either would > work, but my patch is more of a permanent solution. Sure, I left it there because then we don't have bisection broke at that fix I made, i.e. 'make ARCH=x86_64' works at that point too. I applied your patch and will push it to Ingo, now we must cross our fingers so that Stephen doesn't come back to us once more telling it is still broken :o) Best regards, - Arnaldo