Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:37:00 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Kieran Bingham <kbingham@kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 42/86] scripts/gdb: fix lx-symbols gdb.error while
 loading modules
Message-ID: <20200727143700.rtouw4mgim4kjmeb@steredhat>
References: <20200727134914.312934924@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20200727134916.556617777@linuxfoundation.org>
 <7675dec9-7b66-b785-5034-22e8ede0b597@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7675dec9-7b66-b785-5034-22e8ede0b597@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 03:26:42PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Hi Greg, Sasha,
> 
> On 27/07/2020 15:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
> > 
> > [ Upstream commit 7359608a271ce81803de148befefd309baf88c76 ]
> > 
> > Commit ed66f991bb19 ("module: Refactor section attr into bin attribute")
> > removed the 'name' field from 'struct module_sect_attr' triggering the
> > following error when invoking lx-symbols:
> 
> 
> Has ed66f991bb19 ("module: Refactor section attr into bin attribute")
> been backported to 4.19? It doesn't /sound/ like something that would
> require backporting unless something else depended up on it,  but if it
> hasn't been ... then *this* patch shouldn't be either...
> 
> Same for 5.4, and 5.7 that's just come in.
> 
> This patch will 'apply' cleanly, and not hit any compilation errors, as
> it only changes python code... so my reason to highlight is in case some
> automated system picked it up based on those assumptions.
> 
> If ed66f991bb19 has also been backported, then I'm sorry for the noise ;-)
> 

I had the same doubt, but I just saw that ed66f991bb19 was backported to
the stable branches (4.19, 5.4 and 5.7), so I think this backport is
correct.

Thanks,
Stefano