From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: inux-next: Tree for July 1 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:36:18 +0200 Message-ID: <200807012236.19400.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <20080702011434.6fb403d5.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Trond Myklebust To: Stephen Rothwell Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080702011434.6fb403d5.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday, 1 of July 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since next-20080630: > > New tree: ttydev - unfortunately it had to be reverted because of build > failures after lots of conflict resolution (which may have caused the > build failures). > > Changed tree: the cris tree changed branch names. > > The sched tree gained a couple of conflicts against the ftrace and > cpus4096 trees. > > The pci tree gained a conflict against the x86 tree. > > The usb tree reverted due to a build failure after merging with the pci > tree was changed for a fixup patch. > > The v4l-dvb tree lost its three conflicts against Linus' tree. > > The s390 tree gained a conflict against the diver-core tree. > > The ide tree fixed its build problems. > > The nfsd tree lost a conflict against the nfs tree. > > The powerpc tree gained a conflict against the ide tree. > > The net tree gained two conflicts against the powerpc tree. > > The galak tree lost its conflict against the net tree. > > the blk-removal tree gained a conflict against the s390 tree. > > The firmware tree lost several conflicts against the net tree so didn't > need a commit reverted any more. > > Merging the ttydev tree got several conflicts against the usb and > firmware trees. Unfortunately, it also would not build and so was > reverted. > > I have also applied the following patches for know problems: > module: fix NULL pointer dereference in find_symbol() I can't mount NFS shares with this kernel. I get something of this sort in dmesg and it seems to be 100% reproducible: [ 314.058858] RPC: Registered udp transport module. [ 314.058863] RPC: Registered tcp transport module. [ 314.490970] RPC: transport (0) not supported [ 319.246987] __ratelimit: 23 messages suppressed linux-next from yesterday was fine with the same .config . Thanks, Rafael