Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Sat, 25 Nov 2023 15:43:59 +0000
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=EDaz?= <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>
Cc:     stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, 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,
        conor@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/97] 4.19.300-rc1 review
Message-ID: <2023112526-launder-slashed-ab21@gregkh>
References: <20231124171934.122298957@linuxfoundation.org>
 <d48b5514-759f-47a0-b024-494ce87ec60f@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <d48b5514-759f-47a0-b024-494ce87ec60f@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 01:13:33PM -0600, Daniel D?az wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On 24/11/23 11:49 a.?m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.300 release.
> > There are 97 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, 26 Nov 2023 17:19:17 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > 
> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.300-rc1.gz
> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> We see this failure on Arm32:
> -----8<-----
>   /builds/linux/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c: In function 'meson_uart_probe':
>   /builds/linux/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c:728:13: error: 'struct uart_port' has no member named 'has_sysrq'
>     728 |         port->has_sysrq = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SERIAL_MESON_CONSOLE);
>         |             ^~
>   make[4]: *** [/builds/linux/scripts/Makefile.build:303: drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.o] Error 1
> ----->8-----

Thanks, now fixed.

> And this one on Arm64:
> -----8<-----
>   /builds/linux/kernel/profile.c: In function 'profile_dead_cpu':
>   /builds/linux/kernel/profile.c:346:27: warning: the comparison will always evaluate as 'true' for the address of 'prof_cpu_mask' will never be NULL [-Waddress]
>     346 |         if (prof_cpu_mask != NULL)
>         |                           ^~
>   /builds/linux/kernel/profile.c:49:22: note: 'prof_cpu_mask' declared here
>      49 | static cpumask_var_t prof_cpu_mask;
>         |                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   /builds/linux/kernel/profile.c: In function 'profile_online_cpu':
>   /builds/linux/kernel/profile.c:383:27: warning: the comparison will always evaluate as 'true' for the address of 'prof_cpu_mask' will never be NULL [-Waddress]
>     383 |         if (prof_cpu_mask != NULL)
>         |                           ^~
>   /builds/linux/kernel/profile.c:49:22: note: 'prof_cpu_mask' declared here
>      49 | static cpumask_var_t prof_cpu_mask;
>         |                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   /builds/linux/kernel/profile.c: In function 'profile_tick':
>   /builds/linux/kernel/profile.c:413:47: warning: the comparison will always evaluate as 'true' for the address of 'prof_cpu_mask' will never be NULL [-Waddress]
>     413 |         if (!user_mode(regs) && prof_cpu_mask != NULL &&
>         |                                               ^~
>   /builds/linux/kernel/profile.c:49:22: note: 'prof_cpu_mask' declared here
>      49 | static cpumask_var_t prof_cpu_mask;
>         |                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ----->8-----

Is this new?  No code in this -rc touches this file, or prof_cpu_mask
that I can tell.  Hints for what went wrong would be appreciated...

thanks,

greg k-h