[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f809462-217d-fc4d-8e1e-a3d265350fcb@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:14:08 +0000
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, f.fainelli@...il.com,
sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, slade@...dewatkins.com,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/30] 4.19.235-rc1 review
Hi Greg,
On 3/14/22 2:57 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 02:14:41PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 14:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 01:58:12PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 14/03/2022 11:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.235 release.
>>>>> There are 30 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>>>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>>>>> let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Responses should be made by Wed, 16 Mar 2022 11:27:22 +0000.
>>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>>> James Morse <james.morse@....com>
>>>>> KVM: arm64: Reset PMC_EL0 to avoid a panic() on systems with no PMU
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above is causing the following build error for ARM64 ...
>>>>
>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c: In function ‘reset_pmcr’:
>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c:624:3: error: implicit declaration of function ‘vcpu_sys_reg’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>> vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) = 0;
>>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c:624:32: error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
>>>> vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) = 0;
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this also broken in Linus's tree?
>>
>>
>> No, Linus' tree is not broken. However, I don't see this change in Linus'
>> tree (v5.17-rc8).
>
> Ah, this is a "fix something broken in stable-only" type patch :(
> James, I'm dropping this from the 4.19, 4.9, and 4.14 trees right now as
> it looks broken :(
What would you prefer I do here:
1 post a revert for the original problematic backport.
2 post versions of this to fix each of the above 3 stable kernels. (instead of putting conditions in the stable tag).
Thanks,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists