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 23:26:57 -0300 Message-ID: <2789631.bINkkb0RYT@hactar> References: <20160920164414.4062bb0b@canb.auug.org.au> <20160920173012.1abe1d84@canb.auug.org.au> <87mvj2srvj.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:57671 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754843AbcIUC1G (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:27:06 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u8L2Mm2P107320 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:27:06 -0400 Received: from e24smtp05.br.ibm.com (e24smtp05.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.26]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 25jpef26qs-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:27:05 -0400 Received: from localhost by e24smtp05.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:27:02 -0300 In-Reply-To: <87mvj2srvj.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 Dienstag, 20 September 2016, 22:00:32 schrieb Michael Ellerman: > Stephen Rothwell writes: > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:44:14 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > >> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this: > >> > >> powerpc-linux-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-m' > >> scripts/Makefile.build:290: recipe for target > >> 'arch/powerpc/purgatory/printf.o' failed > >> > >> and a few more like that. > > > > OK, this is (most likely) caused by the CONFIG_WORD_SIZE -> BITS change > > interacting with the KEXEC_FILE changes. Tomorrow I will do a better > > merge conflict resolution patch that fixes all those. > > Ah yep looks like that's the problem, patch below should fix it? > > 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. I could move the purgatory inside arch/powerpc/boot and use its BOOTCFLAGS. The needs of the purgatory and the boot wrapper are very similar. Would that be better? -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center