From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753137AbdCPPqU (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:46:20 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:59308 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752008AbdCPPqS (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:46:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:46:00 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Jiri Olsa , Josh Poimboeuf , gregkh , "kernelci.org bot" , kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , stable@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle , James Hogan , Ingo Molnar , Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: stable build: 203 builds: 4 failed, 199 passed, 5 errors, 41 warnings (v4.10.1) Message-ID: <20170316154600.GX12825@kernel.org> References: <20170315072204.GB26837@kroah.com> <20170316122907.GS12825@kernel.org> <20170316124958.GA3620@krava> <20170316135959.GC3620@krava> <20170316150338.GV12825@kernel.org> <20170316151704.GA20999@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170316151704.GA20999@krava> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 04:17:04PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:03:38PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:39:36PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann escreveu: > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 02:44:45PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > >> It's probably another variation of this bug, but the commit you cite got merged > > > >> into 4.10-rc1, while the problem still persists in mainline (4.11-rc2+). > > > > the problem is in objtool build right? the fix was for perf build > > > Ah, got it. Yes, that must be it then. I supposed we coul duplicate what you > > > did for perf in objtool, but a cleaner way would be to generalize it for all of > > > tools/, right? > right, the thing is that objtool is standalone application like perf, > and before their builds can go the 'fixdep' needs to be there.. that's > a condition to use the tools/build framework > not sure how offensive it'd be to current Makefiles if we come with some > generalized code to do that.. I'll think about it, but I think we might > be better of the way we are now > > Humm, can't we have just one fixdep? > we have.. it's just the matter who will build it first ;-) Ok, I haven't said "can't we have just one fixdep?", what I really said was "can't we make sure we don't have races building it?" ;-) - Arnaldo