Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-150898-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:06:46 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFT] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the
 perf tree
Message-ID: <ZiHDplDS5OuDvhMU@x1>
References: <20240402094116.79751030@canb.auug.org.au>
 <ZhlRn0TUkcDaAZT5@x1>
 <20240413124340.4d48c6d8@canb.auug.org.au>
 <ZiGRQZQGl0REHm9A@x1>
 <20240419091717.50ce0a81@canb.auug.org.au>
 <ZiHAqDX0AQfsQbb6@x1>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZiHAqDX0AQfsQbb6@x1>

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 09:54:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:17:17AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:31:45 -0300 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > And reproduced the problem, find below a patch that reverts the patch
> > > that removes tools/include/uapi/linux/stat.h, with it applied in the
> > > sequence above right after the merge of perf-tools-next it seems to
> > > work, i.e. it builds without problems.

> > > Can you please test this so that I can get it into perf-tools-next?

> > That works for me.  Thanks for this.

> > Tested-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> # PowerPC le incermental build

> > I will apply that patch to linux-next today (if you don't have time to
> > update your tree before I merge it).

> I'm finishing some local tests here, will push perf-tools-next after
> that, some 30 minutes.

Ah, and again thanks for the report and follow up collaboration on
having these things sorted out, I'm sorry for not having this fixed
sooner, I'm taking notes to automate this type of test and have it done
before pushing branches publicly.

I just found it strange that when trying to reproduce this the problem
didn't manifested itself reliably, but then, ENOTIME to root cause this
so far, this (partial) revert is the best thing we can do now, so lets
go with it.

- Arnaldo