Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7AEC636D3 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2023 16:08:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231866AbjBDQIr (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Feb 2023 11:08:47 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41658 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229448AbjBDQIn (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Feb 2023 11:08:43 -0500 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B01883E0; Sat, 4 Feb 2023 08:08:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B045B80AE2; Sat, 4 Feb 2023 16:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 623C0C433D2; Sat, 4 Feb 2023 16:08:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1675526917; bh=RZp/If+1OL8vdGYL7EKkxSgfAujYOM+AMDfm7cxGyxA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=PCQiRDiiKfAPE3ImtS4aeZK2jrsDshczX7wBhqwf0LOdiFVjMPmZdxbYLOb6ZC4r9 C1v7tYvmmdajfvtipNCnYq1VcZvGYAP6ZV7DySTKCmuLi/eZetp/AlePbGM0A8Y9iz UKgF/R8F4x97iHrJv+Mm3Iqk9lQ6fCyoK8b0KmC7Eq/M1isNSPINzYVTfevZz4I5b+ bH+DtJ4S9oiX1FOTjie/jpLvvhx0yYYxqEic4m6lIcWQNiad4KIhrrZqMcIYAx3w3q AT53eYFIvw6BLA1SKGzJSBt3o7IzrL9c1h11zMWn9K134hg98Rfy2vIXc6RmKq58VT O80aildBGAWlw== Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 11:08:36 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Eric Biggers , Guenter Roeck , stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de, jonathanh@nvidia.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com, srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 000/134] 5.4.231-rc1 review Message-ID: References: <20230203155619.GA3176223@roeck-us.net> <20230203171826.GA1500930@roeck-us.net> <705ab151-da1e-30e1-c232-c9860717267d@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 02:59:46PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 08:48:56AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 08:59:09AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:49:49AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: >> > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> > > > On 2/3/23 11:07, Eric Biggers wrote: >> > > > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:54:21AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: >> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:18:26AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 07:56:19AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:11:45AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.231 release. >> > > > > > > > > > There are 134 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 Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:09:58 +0000. >> > > > > > > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Building ia64:defconfig ... failed >> > > > > > > > > -------------- >> > > > > > > > > Error log: >> > > > > > > > > :1511:2: warning: #warning syscall clone3 not implemented [-Wcpp] >> > > > > > > > > arch/ia64/kernel/mca_drv.c: In function 'mca_handler_bh': >> > > > > > > > > arch/ia64/kernel/mca_drv.c:179:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'make_task_dead' >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Caused by "exit: Add and use make_task_dead.". Did that really have to be backported ? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Yup, it does! >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Eric, any help with this? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Adding "#include " to the affected file would probably >> > > > > > > be the easy fix. I did a quick check, and it works. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Note that the same problem is seen in v4.14.y and v4.19.y. Later >> > > > > > > kernels don't have the problem. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This problem arises because transitively includes >> > > > > > in 5.10 and later, but not in 5.4 and earlier. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Greg, any preference for how to handle this situation? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Just add '#include ' to the affected .c file (and hope there >> > > > > > are no more affected .c files in the other arch directories) and call it a day? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Or should we backport the transitive inclusion (i.e., the #include added by >> > > > > > commit 80fbaf1c3f29)? Or move the declaration of make_task_dead() into >> > > > > > so that it's next to do_exit()? >> > > > > >> > > > > One question: do *all* the arches actually get built as part of the testing for >> > > > > each stable release? If so, we can just add the #include to the .c files that >> > > > > need it. If not, then it would be safer to take one of the other approaches. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Yes, I do build all architectures for each stable release. >> > > > >> > > > FWIW, I only noticed that one build failure due to this problem. >> > > >> > > Okay, great. In that case, Greg or Sasha, can you fold the needed #include into >> > > arch/ia64/kernel/mca_drv.c in exit-add-and-use-make_task_dead.patch on 4.14, >> > > 4.19, and 5.4? Or should I just send the whole series again for each? >> > >> > I'll fold it in later today when I get a chance, no need to resubmit the >> > whole thing, thanks! >> >> Greg, I did it for the 5.4 backport. If I do it for 4.19 and 4.14 it's >> going to add a bunch of fuzz into those, lmk if you want me to push >> those too or whether you'll fix it up. > >I just fixed up those 2 trees, and I don't understand what you mean by >"a bunch of fuzz". Can you look at my changes to verify I got it right? Your changes look right. We're likely using different tools to format a patch - you can see differences in things like indentation of the diffstat, which headers are kept in the patch, and so on... If I were to regenerate patches you have previously queued up, we'd see a somewhat big diff because of that. -- Thanks, Sasha