[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZAg2989Hzuc1Wmlp@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 08:19:19 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
Cc: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...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,
jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de,
Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@...cle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/567] 5.15.99-rc1 review
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:12:48PM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>
> On 3/7/23 21:02, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
> > On 07/03/23 10:25 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.99 release.
> > > There are 567 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.
> > >
> >
> > While trying to build 5.15.99-rc1 with
> > * make -C tools/perf all
> >
> > The following build errors are seen.
> >
> > util/intel-pt-decoder/intel-pt-decoder.c: In function
> > 'intel_pt_eptw_lookahead_cb':
> > util/intel-pt-decoder/intel-pt-decoder.c:1445:14: error: 'INTEL_PT_CFE'
> [...]
> >
> > [PATCH 5.15 264/567] perf intel-pt: Add support for emulated ptwrite
> > is causing this error.
>
> In addition, cherry-picking this fixes the build (but we haven't done a
> full test with it):
>
> commit 2750af50a360b52c6df1f5652ae728878bececc0
> Author: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> Date: Mon Jan 24 10:41:39 2022 +0200
>
> perf intel-pt: pkt-decoder: Add CFE and EVD packets
>
> Greg: Do you prefer this kind of error report go to the 0/N email (like
> in this case) or to the specific problematic patch email if we've
> already identified it?
Either works for me, I'll go queue this up now, thanks!
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists