Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:38:51 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 11
Message-ID: <20181211173851.GA29028@roeck-us.net>
References: <20181211182627.42b79e40@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181211182627.42b79e40@canb.auug.org.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:26:27PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Changes since 20181210:
> 
> The arm64 tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
> 
> The f2fs tree gained a conflict against the fscrypt tree.
> 
> The ubifs tree gained a conflict against the fscrypt tree.
> 
> The rdma tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> next-20181203.
> 
> The tip tree gained a conflict against the hwmon-staging tree.
> 
> The gpio tree lost its build failure.
> 
> The akpm-current tree lost its build failure but gained conflist against
> the arm64 tree.
> 
> Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 7744
>  8462 files changed, 365061 insertions(+), 211977 deletions(-)
> 

Build results:
	total: 152 pass: 150 fail: 2
Failed builds: 
	arm:allmodconfig 
	arm64:allmodconfig 
Qemu test results:
	total: 337 pass: 137 fail: 200

Build failures:

arm:

In file included from drivers/media/pci/ddbridge/ddbridge.h:22:0,
                 from drivers/media/pci/ddbridge/ddbridge-ci.c:19:
arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h:35:50: error: unknown type name 'cpumask_t'

arm64:

arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.o:(_kprobe_blacklist+0x0): dangerous relocation:
	unsupported relocation

The latter is with gcc 7.3.0. I'll build and try with gcc 7.4.0 and
the most recent binutils later.

Most of the failing qemu tests fail with something like

Starting init: /sbin/init exists but couldn't execute it (error -95)

Others (such as aarch64) crash silently.

Has anyone reported this already, or do I need to run bisect ?

Guenter