From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38F6C433DF for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 02:22:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AF722261 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 02:22:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="L9B9pgUA" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729548AbgJOCWH (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 22:22:07 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:47545 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728783AbgJOCWH (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 22:22:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1602728526; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=J/rdXiVwQj4qh66dMeXPVt6rZ8o/93caEQWqzhTliRc=; b=L9B9pgUAqfdsN3DjwPiDJSNjoWY8ktB6A51j1oZ8FMcoF7UMRNmhoOlTwHzl9VjqdF43Ys cQywqCsitBDhniUEkxvnJ38stR1N11od67xEjLZ6RGcJMtSq3wFKNiV7GHsodp40ew/IIR Z6Iw3cKyuWN1Q8xV4pC3TEMm++o8Pl0= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-544-eP8fC6a9OduXYYDsMD9O6g-1; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 22:22:01 -0400 X-MC-Unique: eP8fC6a9OduXYYDsMD9O6g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8F0856BF2; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 02:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x1.home (ovpn-113-35.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.35]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A84C5C1BD; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 02:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 20:21:58 -0600 From: Alex Williamson To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Diana Craciun OSS , Bharat Bhushan , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfio tree Message-ID: <20201014202158.4d1725dc@x1.home> In-Reply-To: <20201015115903.3399b116@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20201013140744.64937ecd@canb.auug.org.au> <276bf3f3-108b-fe60-4d17-d3f314e61db4@oss.nxp.com> <20201013132016.44af05f1@w520.home> <20201015115903.3399b116@canb.auug.org.au> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:59:03 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:20:16 -0600 Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > Thanks, Stephen. Diana has posted a 32bit build fix which I've merged, > > maybe that was the error. Also Diana's series in my branch is currently > > dependent on fsl-bus support in GregKH's char-misc-next branch. Looking > > at the log from the successful build, I wonder if our branches are just > > in the wrong order (vfio/next processed on line 341, char-misc-next > > processed on 387). I don't know if you regularly re-order for this > > sort of thing, otherwise it should work out when Greg's branch gets > > merged, but testing sooner in next would be preferred. > > I have put the vfio tree after the char-misc tree today (so hopefully > it will build). The proper way to do this is for you and Greg to have > a shared branch with the commits you both depend on and bot merge that > branch. That way, it doesn't matter what order the tress are merged > (by me or Linus). Hi Stephen, Well that seems like the obviously correct solution in retrospect ;) thanks for the explanation. I'll check-in with Greg to see if his pull request is imminent or we can share a branch. Thanks, Alex