From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 565D0C433EF for ; Tue, 3 May 2022 21:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KtCsb5xzQz3bfg for ; Wed, 4 May 2022 07:34:43 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=UthkOEc1; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=2604:1380:4641:c500::1; helo=dfw.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=nathan@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=UthkOEc1; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KtCrv338zz3096 for ; Wed, 4 May 2022 07:34:07 +1000 (AEST) 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 dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C8BF614FA; Tue, 3 May 2022 21:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A6D8C385A9; Tue, 3 May 2022 21:34:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1651613643; bh=sN5FuOKqNd0XV4Nh0Le7UJ1EWbfgNf8PwkVQcOXZWhs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UthkOEc1attrGYiLizI9QSas2cCXLo7yZKned3biguUWuJRbxF1UJAb1M0AB/oB96 oOqiC2gU3Z1QbmwaCryFRRu+N75sf8rXMHZwpX4ERf8BzySnhmAqT0H1T3Q4+bdHHd BYnUTfRZo4AmkynYUPOoQKhVkKcbKzpNuqYY22oUi5se3h5vjdVVuP5H9mUw+tlJ4Y /lGjw4U6k3pkZbiyjpWGpJer+YqLEytyPVVVGsOoYsaxXAvVCBgbgTAEFuHPEJkRZT b90rgGc4M27RTavZC2c7gX9XQoAIhMDQrJd7MkzCX17xUM0i6ReFiigo4MWSe11BKu XGY9sw/PZHEJA== Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 14:34:00 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: Apply d799769188529abc6cbf035a10087a51f7832b6b to 5.17 and 5.15? Message-ID: References: <877d7ig9oz.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sasha Levin , Paul Menzel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , llvm@lists.linux.dev, Nick Desaulniers , stable@vger.kernel.org, Tom Rix , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 08:13:13AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 05:46:52PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Nathan Chancellor writes: > > > Hi Greg, Sasha, and Michael, > > > > > > Commit d79976918852 ("powerpc/64: Add UADDR64 relocation support") fixes > > > a boot failure with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y kernels linked with recent > > > versions of ld.lld [1]. Additionally, it resolves a separate boot > > > failure that Paul Menzel reported [2] with ld.lld 13.0.0. Is this a > > > reasonable backport for 5.17 and 5.15? It applies cleanly, resolves both > > > problems, and does not appear to cause any other issues in my testing > > > for both trees but I was curious what Michael's opinion was, as I am far > > > from a PowerPC expert. > > > > > > This change does apply cleanly to 5.10 (I did not try earlier branches) > > > but there are other changes needed for ld.lld to link CONFIG_RELOCATABLE > > > kernels in that branch so to avoid any regressions, I think it is safe > > > to just focus on 5.15 and 5.17. > > > > I considered tagging it for stable, but I wanted it to get a bit of > > testing first, it's a reasonably big patch. > > > > I think we're reasonably confident it doesn't introduce any new bugs, > > but more testing time is always good. > > > > So I guess I'd be inclined to wait another week or so before requesting > > a stable backport? > > Sure, thanks for the response! I'll ping this thread on Monday, May 2nd, > so that we have two more RC releases to try and flush out any lingering > issues. If you do receive any reports of regressions, please let me > know. I decided to wait an extra day just to give people the opportunity to install -rc5 and run it through their tests. I have not heard of any reports yet, are there any further objections? Cheers, Nathan