[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ba42c1b-0936-4716-b105-c868aced0b82@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 12:52:50 +0100
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/irqflags: Fix build failure
On 19.01.26 12:36, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 07:29:37PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> Yes. The problem was introduced by that patch. It was pure luck paravirt.h
>> got included via another header.
>
> So there's no configuration right now which triggers this problem?
I don't know any. This doesn't mean there is none.
>
>> Yes, this would be a possibility. I still can do that, but I saw no real reason
>> to resend the other 5 patches without any change.
>
> You mean, you expect me to read minds? :)
Oh, you can't? ;-)
>
>> TBH I'm quite puzzled that this build failure hasn't been seen before. As I said
>> above: pure luck.
>
> Sorry, we don't do "pure luck."
>
> This either fixes something in the *current* kernel or if not, it should be
> applied as an urgent fix when it does after "pure luck" has been debugged
> properly and explained.
Well, your call in this case.
So do you want me to resend the series triggering the issue with this patch
prepended, or are you fine with applying this patch to the tip branch for
the next merge window, and wait for the other series to get the needed Acks?
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3684 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists