Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > > > i just successfully booted your config on 4 separate 64-bit 
> > > > test-systems with latest -tip. (two dual-core boxes, a quad and a 
> > > > 16way box) Latest -tip includes sched-next and x86-next as well.
> > > 
> > > What's the point in testing a radically differenet kernel from the one 
> > > which is known to be crashing?
> > 
> > well, you Cc:-ed me, so i wanted to exclude -tip's 750+ commits in this 
> > area (scheduling, 64-bit x86) in the first step.
> 
> What's the relationship between -tip and linux-next?

most of the -tip topics (there are 75 of them currently) are present in 
linux-next - about ~70% of all -tip commits are in linux-next already. 
The stuff that is not in linux-next yet is either because it's: 
miscellany fixes (i.e. intentionally grabbed out-of-tree to make our 
tests work better), not cooked enough yet, or because we are still 
working it out - tip is less than a month old still.

in general the rule is that if there's anything we want to push 
upstream, it will show up in linux-next.

> The crash seems to be due to sched_domains startup ordering, at a guess.
> 
> My third bisect iteration has hit this:
> 
> arch/x86/mm/kmmio.c: In function 'get_kmmio_probe':
> arch/x86/mm/kmmio.c:85: error: implicit declaration of function 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> arch/x86/mm/kmmio.c:85: error: 'list' undeclared (first use in this function)

hm, which commit is this exactly? I've never hit it myself in bisection 
(and there are days when i bisect -tip several times). We'll respin 
tip/tracing/mmiotrace if it's bisection-hostile. You can probably nudge 
it into building via "git-bisect next".

	Ingo