From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 12:01:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aNpm-6LS0ZHJQMI-@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16392 bytes --]
Hi all,
After merging the vfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
In file included from /tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:11,
from /tmp/next/build/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/pagefault/pagefault.c:19:
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h: In function 'ltl_monitor_init':
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'check_trace_callback_type_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/instrumentation.h:18:48: note: in definition of macro 'rv_attach_trace_probe'
18 | check_trace_callback_type_##tp(rv_handler); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
In file included from /tmp/next/build/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/pagefault/pagefault.c:9:
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:260:49: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
260 | check_trace_callback_type_##name(void (*cb)(data_proto)) \
| ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from /tmp/next/build/include/asm-generic/bug.h:7,
from /tmp/next/build/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:103,
from /tmp/next/build/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h:9,
from /tmp/next/build/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h:5,
from /tmp/next/build/include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h:7,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/bitops.h:28,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/kernel.h:23,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/interrupt.h:6,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/trace_recursion.h:5,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/ftrace.h:10,
from /tmp/next/build/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/pagefault/pagefault.c:2:
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'register_trace_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/once_lite.h:28:41: note: in definition of macro 'DO_ONCE_LITE_IF'
28 | bool __ret_do_once = !!(condition); \
| ^~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/instrumentation.h:19:17: note: in expansion of macro 'WARN_ONCE'
19 | WARN_ONCE(register_trace_##tp(rv_handler, NULL), \
| ^~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:9: note: in expansion of macro 'rv_attach_trace_probe'
75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:241:38: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
241 | register_trace_##name(void (*probe)(data_proto), void *data) \
| ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h: In function 'ltl_monitor_destroy':
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:92:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'unregister_trace_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
92 | rv_detach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/instrumentation.h:28:39: note: in definition of macro 'rv_detach_trace_probe'
28 | unregister_trace_##tp(rv_handler, NULL); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:254:40: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
254 | unregister_trace_##name(void (*probe)(data_proto), void *data) \
| ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
make[6]: *** [/tmp/next/build/scripts/Makefile.build:287: kernel/trace/rv/monitors/pagefault/pagefault.o] Error 1
make[6]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
In file included from /tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:11,
from /tmp/next/build/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c:23:
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h: In function 'ltl_monitor_init':
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'check_trace_callback_type_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/instrumentation.h:18:48: note: in definition of macro 'rv_attach_trace_probe'
18 | check_trace_callback_type_##tp(rv_handler); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
In file included from /tmp/next/build/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c:3:
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:260:49: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
260 | check_trace_callback_type_##name(void (*cb)(data_proto)) \
| ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from /tmp/next/build/include/asm-generic/bug.h:7,
from /tmp/next/build/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:103,
from /tmp/next/build/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h:9,
from /tmp/next/build/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h:5,
from /tmp/next/build/include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h:7,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/bitops.h:28,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/kernel.h:23,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/interrupt.h:6,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/trace_recursion.h:5,
from /tmp/next/build/include/linux/ftrace.h:10,
from /tmp/next/build/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c:2:
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'register_trace_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/once_lite.h:28:41: note: in definition of macro 'DO_ONCE_LITE_IF'
28 | bool __ret_do_once = !!(condition); \
| ^~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/instrumentation.h:19:17: note: in expansion of macro 'WARN_ONCE'
19 | WARN_ONCE(register_trace_##tp(rv_handler, NULL), \
| ^~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:9: note: in expansion of macro 'rv_attach_trace_probe'
75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:241:38: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
241 | register_trace_##name(void (*probe)(data_proto), void *data) \
| ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h: In function 'ltl_monitor_destroy':
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:92:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'unregister_trace_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
92 | rv_detach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
/tmp/next/build/include/rv/instrumentation.h:28:39: note: in definition of macro 'rv_detach_trace_probe'
28 | unregister_trace_##tp(rv_handler, NULL); \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:254:40: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
254 | unregister_trace_##name(void (*probe)(data_proto), void *data) \
| ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/next/build/include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
make[6]: *** [/tmp/next/build/scripts/Makefile.build:287: kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.o] Error 1
make[5]: *** [/tmp/next/build/scripts/Makefile.build:556: kernel/trace/rv] Error 2
make[5]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[4]: *** [/tmp/next/build/scripts/Makefile.build:556: kernel/trace] Error 2
make[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[3]: *** [/tmp/next/build/scripts/Makefile.build:556: kernel] Error 2
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[2]: *** [/tmp/next/build/Makefile:2011: .] Error 2
make[1]: *** [/tmp/next/build/Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
make: *** [Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
Command exited with non-zero status 2
17036.15user 1313.54system 1:54.95elapsed 15962%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1394068maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (5021major+224011004minor)pagefaults 0swaps
I couldn't figure out exactly which commit was causing this in a timely
fashion (and suspect it may be an interaction with another tree), I've
used the VFS tree from 20250926 instead.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2025-09-29 11:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 140+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-29 11:01 Mark Brown [this message]
2025-09-29 13:36 ` linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree Mark Brown
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-01-04 22:36 Stephen Rothwell
2021-01-04 23:28 ` Al Viro
2020-10-27 4:14 Stephen Rothwell
2020-10-27 4:59 ` Al Viro
2020-11-10 19:00 ` Al Viro
2020-11-10 21:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-09-28 1:31 Stephen Rothwell
2020-09-28 6:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-24 8:30 Stephen Rothwell
2020-09-24 20:08 ` Al Viro
2020-09-25 12:01 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-09-25 13:38 ` Al Viro
2020-09-29 4:10 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-10-06 14:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-10-06 21:04 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-10-07 15:46 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-07-29 1:56 Stephen Rothwell
2020-07-29 6:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-07-29 19:19 ` Al Viro
2020-07-27 12:06 Stephen Rothwell
2020-05-07 0:39 Stephen Rothwell
2020-05-07 2:35 ` Al Viro
2020-05-07 15:07 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-10 6:57 Stephen Rothwell
2020-01-10 10:00 ` Carlos Maiolino
2020-01-10 11:03 ` Carlos Maiolino
2020-01-10 22:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-01-13 9:28 ` Carlos Maiolino
2020-01-24 2:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-01-29 22:40 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-01-02 4:01 Stephen Rothwell
2019-01-30 3:45 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-10-03 0:32 Stephen Rothwell
2018-10-16 0:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-10-16 16:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2018-10-16 20:45 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-09-10 3:59 Stephen Rothwell
2018-09-10 3:35 Stephen Rothwell
2018-09-18 21:38 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-09-18 22:17 ` David Howells
2018-09-18 23:49 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-09-19 7:17 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-09-19 6:01 ` David Howells
2018-09-19 6:31 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-09-20 10:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-09-20 16:20 ` David Howells
2018-09-20 10:44 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-10-29 4:33 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-10-29 9:07 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-10-29 9:21 ` David Howells
2018-10-29 10:29 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-09-06 2:28 Stephen Rothwell
2018-08-07 10:58 Stephen Rothwell
2018-08-07 1:11 Stephen Rothwell
2018-08-06 0:37 Stephen Rothwell
2018-08-06 12:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-08-07 0:59 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-08-07 2:20 ` Masahiro Yamada
2018-06-19 1:47 Stephen Rothwell
2018-03-19 6:06 Stephen Rothwell
2018-03-19 19:56 ` Mateusz Guzik
2018-04-03 2:26 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-04-08 2:19 ` Al Viro
2018-04-08 2:55 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-12-03 23:16 Stephen Rothwell
2017-07-11 0:55 Stephen Rothwell
2017-07-11 9:21 ` David Howells
2017-07-10 2:15 Stephen Rothwell
2017-07-10 2:34 ` Al Viro
2017-02-27 0:27 Stephen Rothwell
2017-02-27 8:31 ` David Howells
2016-07-29 1:19 Stephen Rothwell
2016-07-29 4:18 ` Al Viro
2016-05-02 1:25 Stephen Rothwell
2016-05-02 1:31 ` Al Viro
2016-05-02 4:48 ` Abhijith Das
2015-12-10 0:18 Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-10 0:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-10 0:48 ` Al Viro
2015-12-10 15:44 ` Mike Marshall
2015-12-21 0:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-01-07 0:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-01-07 2:09 ` Al Viro
2015-12-09 5:58 Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-09 1:19 Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-09 21:30 ` Mike Marshall
2015-12-09 22:20 ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-09 22:53 ` Andreas Grünbacher
2015-12-07 22:42 Stephen Rothwell
2015-05-11 1:26 Stephen Rothwell
2015-05-13 2:26 ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-03-13 1:02 Stephen Rothwell
2015-03-24 3:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-03-24 10:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-10 7:45 Stephen Rothwell
2014-12-11 2:32 ` Al Viro
2014-04-22 1:26 Stephen Rothwell
2014-04-23 0:33 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-11-07 0:30 Stephen Rothwell
2013-09-09 2:33 Stephen Rothwell
2013-09-09 8:54 ` Ian Kent
2013-06-24 1:35 Stephen Rothwell
2013-06-24 9:34 ` Al Viro
2013-05-01 2:22 Stephen Rothwell
2013-05-01 13:13 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-04-08 1:15 Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-09 15:49 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-03 0:22 Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-03 1:14 ` Al Viro
2013-04-02 0:26 Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-02 0:39 ` Al Viro
2012-07-16 0:59 Stephen Rothwell
2012-05-31 0:51 Stephen Rothwell
2012-05-31 1:02 ` Al Viro
2012-01-03 1:43 Stephen Rothwell
2012-01-03 13:39 ` Jan Kara
2012-01-03 14:45 ` Al Viro
2012-01-04 2:17 ` Al Viro
2012-01-04 2:50 ` Dave Chinner
2012-01-04 18:00 ` Jan Kara
2012-01-04 18:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-04 22:26 ` Jan Kara
2011-12-22 0:15 Stephen Rothwell
2011-12-20 0:31 Stephen Rothwell
2011-12-19 1:06 Stephen Rothwell
2011-12-19 1:12 ` Al Viro
2011-07-16 6:44 Stephen Rothwell
2011-07-25 3:20 ` Stephen Rothwell
2011-07-25 18:26 ` Trond Myklebust
2011-07-16 6:36 Stephen Rothwell
2010-07-19 0:25 Stephen Rothwell
2010-08-04 1:47 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-07-12 2:24 Stephen Rothwell
2010-07-12 5:31 ` Ryusuke Konishi
2010-06-22 1:22 Stephen Rothwell
2010-08-04 1:50 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-05-28 1:45 Stephen Rothwell
2010-05-28 1:51 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aNpm-6LS0ZHJQMI-@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).