From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755153AbaE1UjA (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2014 16:39:00 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:54752 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751694AbaE1Ui7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2014 16:38:59 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: TE+R3KNh3/Q5y1KLdpXWf90U2riLx+gqcYHjwXw5PzYE 1401309537 Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 13:42:32 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Paul Bolle Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree Message-ID: <20140528204232.GA8224@kroah.com> References: <20140528194629.0757af1b@canb.auug.org.au> <1401271041.28714.22.camel@x220> <1401272095.28714.30.camel@x220> <1401308488.6186.10.camel@x220> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1401308488.6186.10.camel@x220> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:21:28PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > Greg, > > On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 12:14 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > I must have compile tested this with CONFIG_LIB80211_CRYPT_TKIP=m while > > the code checks for CONFIG_LIB80211_CRYPT_TKIP only (ie, builtin only). > > I'll have to have a better look at this. > > > > Greg, can the cleaning up of this mess involve an entirely new patch? An > > incremental patch would leave this build error in a certain range of > > commits. As I already have the patch in my tree, I can't do that, we can live with the build issue. > The pieces of the latest linux-next build were handed to me by Stephen > as my patch managed to break it. > > I'm assuming you'd like to include rtl8192u in linux-next's builds > again. Currently I got nothing to offer to you but a request to either > drop "staging: rtl8192u: rename CONFIG_IEEE80211_CRYPT_TKIP" from > staging-next or, if that's not how staging-next works, a request to > revert it. What do you prefer? Either is fine with me, I can revert it, or apply a fix, which ever you want, just let me know. thanks, greg k-h