From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933193AbcKQRBX (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:01:23 -0500 Received: from mailgw01.mediatek.com ([210.61.82.183]:24839 "EHLO mailgw01.mediatek.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754069AbcKQRBT (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:01:19 -0500 Message-ID: <1479401166.30632.14.camel@mtksdaap41> Subject: Re: DRM: urgent v4.9-rc6 build regression: master build: 2 failures 1 warnings (v4.9-rc5-213-g961b708) From: CK Hu To: Arnd Bergmann CC: , Dave Airlie , , Mark Brown , , , Philipp Zabel , Bibby Hsieh Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:46:06 +0800 In-Reply-To: <3081141.oCXXbHYFFj@wuerfel> References: <3658238.UlO2HTojHV@wuerfel> <3081141.oCXXbHYFFj@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MTK: N Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Arnd: I've made a mistake that I've tried to build these patches on v4.9-rc1, but I does not set CONFIG_DRM_MEDIATEK=y, therefore I didn't find out these build fails. Now I fix the config problem, and I think I should build these patches on latest kernel version even though patch's owner test on old kernel version. I wish this flow would make things better. It's ok that you just revert these two patches. I've fixed build fail and will request pull later. Regards, CK On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 16:24 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 8:50:05 PM CET Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > Arnd could you send a git pull with the two reverts, with my Acked-by on > > it? I won't be in a place to do it for 8-9hrs. > > I don't think it's that urgent, as long as we make sure it's fixed in the > next -rc. I've sent out the reverts as patches with a little more information > in the changelog: it turns out that they are actually broken on linux-next too, > they had just not made it in there, and one of the two actually did build > on older kernels. > > I think what happened here is that the fixes were tested on a v4.4 kernel > and blindly forward-ported. It probably makes sense to look at the > entire series again in case another one of them is broken. > > Philipp, Hu, Bibby, could one of you have another look? > > Arnd