lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.19 000/219] 4.19.92-stable review
From
Date
On 1/1/20 8:24 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 06:01:12PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 12/30/19 9:35 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:19:59AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 06:16:42PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.92 release.
>>>>> There are 219 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 Tue, 31 Dec 2019 16:17:25 +0000.
>>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>>>
>>>> Build results:
>>>> total: 156 pass: 141 fail: 15
>>>> Failed builds:
>>>> i386:tools/perf
>>>> <all mips>
>>>> x86_64:tools/perf
>>>> Qemu test results:
>>>> total: 381 pass: 316 fail: 65
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>> <all mips>
>>>> <all ppc64_book3s_defconfig>
>>>>
>>>> perf as with v4.14.y.
>>>>
>>>> arch/mips/kernel/syscall.c:40:10: fatal error: asm/sync.h: No such file or directory
>>>
>>> Ah, will go drop the offending patch and push out a -rc2 with both of
>>> these issues fixed.
>>>
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h:56:1: error: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE’
>>>> and similar errors.
>>>>
>>>> The powerpc build problem is inherited from mainline and has not been fixed
>>>> there as far as I can see. I guess that makes 4.19.y bug-for-bug "compatible"
>>>> with mainline in that regard.
>>>
>>> bug compatible is fun :(
>>>
>>
>> Not really. It is a terrible idea and results in the opposite of what I would
>> call a "stable" release.
>>
>> Anyway, turns out the offending commit is 14c73bd344d ("powerpc/vcpu: Assume
>> dedicated processors as non-preempt"), which uses static_branch_unlikely().
>
> It does? I see:
>
> + if (lppaca_shared_proc(get_lppaca()))
> + static_branch_enable(&shared_processor);
>
>> This function does not exist for ppc in v4.19.y and v5.4.y. Thus, the _impact_
>> of the error in v4.19.y and v5.4.y is the same as in mainline, but the _cause_
>> is different. Upstream commit 14c73bd344d should not have been applied to
>> v4.19.y and v5.4.y and needs to be reverted from those branches.
>
> I'll go revert this patch, but as it was marked for stable by the
> authors of the patch, as relevant back to 4.18, I would have hoped that
> they knew what they were doing :)
>

I probably didn't have enough champagne last night when I wrote my previous e-mail.
No, the problem is the same as with the upstream kernel, so feel free to drop
the revert if you prefer "bug-for-bug compatibility". Given where we are, that
is probably better than dropping the patch and re-applying it after its fix
is available.

The underlying problem is that the offending patch introduces the use of
jump label code into arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h without including
linux/jump_label.h. Depending on the configuration, this results in the observed
build errors.

Patches were submitted upstream to fix the problem, but the fix has not been
applied to mainline, and I don't see a maintainer reaction. Maybe everyone
is off for the holidays.

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1215380/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1214954/

Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-01 18:29    [W:0.169 / U:4.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site