From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:12:07 -0300 Message-ID: <2398986.v4utNoeCOx@hactar> References: <20160920164414.4062bb0b@canb.auug.org.au> <20160921091622.53067648@canb.auug.org.au> <87bmzirta5.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:42505 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755187AbcIUBMQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:12:16 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u8L18a6m040107 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:12:16 -0400 Received: from e24smtp03.br.ibm.com (e24smtp03.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.24]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 25jua9bxqd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:12:15 -0400 Received: from localhost by e24smtp03.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:12:14 -0300 In-Reply-To: <87bmzirta5.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 21 September 2016, 10:27:46 schrieb Michael Ellerman: > Stephen Rothwell writes: > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:00:32 +1000 Michael Ellerman wrote: > >> Ah yep looks like that's the problem, patch below should fix it? > > > > Yeah, I am just going to (logically) run "sed > > 's/CONFIG_WORD_SIZE/BITS/'" > > over the tree during the merge of the apm-current tree today. > > > >> I think I'd actually prefer it if purgatory didn't redefine the CFLAGS > >> from scratch, so I'll see if Thiago can do that and send a new version. > > > > That could be better, but there are still some additions of > > CONFIG_WORD_SIZE elsewhere :-( > > I don't see any others in yesterday's next? This kbuild failure is one case: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-September/148898.html elf_util_64.o is only built if CONFIG_WORD_SIZE=64. This is affects the bisectabilty of many patches in the kexec_file_load series. Should I post a new version rebased on powerpc/next? -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center