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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200917000757.1232850-1-Tony.Ambardar@gmail.com>
 <20200917135437.1238787-1-Tony.Ambardar@gmail.com> <CAPGftE-Q+Q479j7SikDBQLiM+VKbpXpRYnTeEJeAHeZrh_Ok2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <87r1jaeclf.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
In-Reply-To: <87r1jaeclf.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
From:   Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:00:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPGftE_JthCCWdH8sgTNp7WVcuUu7zPCpmG1KWZ8iovcEwSd2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: fix EDEADLOCK redefinition error in uapi/asm/errno.h
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>, Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 03:41, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@gmail.com> writes:
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > The latest version of this patch addressed all feedback I'm aware of
> > when submitted last September, and I've seen no further comments from
> > reviewers since then.
> >
> > Could you please let me know where this stands and if anything further
> > is needed?
>
> Sorry, it's still sitting in my inbox :/
>
> I was going to reply to suggest we split the tools change out. The
> headers under tools are usually updated by another maintainer, I think
> it might even be scripted.
>
> Anyway I've applied your patch and done that (dropped the change to
> tools/.../errno.h), which should also mean the stable backport is more
> likely to work automatically.
>
> It will hit mainline in v5.13-rc1 and then be backported to the stable
> trees.
>
> I don't think you actually need the tools version of the header updated
> to fix your bug? In which case we can probably just wait for it to be
> updated automatically when the tools headers are sync'ed with the kernel
> versions.
>
> cheers

I appreciate the follow up. My original bug was indeed with the tools
header but is being patched locally, so waiting for those headers to
sync with the kernel versions is fine if it simplifies things overall.

Thanks,
Tony