Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/191] 5.10.201-rc1 review

Florian Fainelli
2023-11-17T17:06:46Z

On 11/17/23 06:58, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/16/23 23:41, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 at 06:43, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/15/23 12:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.201 release.
>>>> There are 191 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 Fri, 17 Nov 2023 20:46:03 +0000.
>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Build results:
>>>          total: 159 pass: 155 fail: 4
>>> Failed builds:
>>>          arm:allmodconfig
>>>          arm64:allmodconfig
>>>          i386:tools/perf
>>>          x86_64:tools/perf
>>> Qemu test results:
>>>          total: 495 pass: 495 fail: 0
>>>
>>> with:
>>>
>>> Building arm64:allmodconfig ... failed
>>> --------------
>>> Error log:
>>> drivers/interconnect/qcom/osm-l3.c:6:10: fatal error: linux/args.h:
>>> No such file or directory
>>>
>>> There is no linux/args.h in v5.10.y.
>>>
>>> Caused by "interconnect: qcom: osm-l3: Replace custom implementation
>>> of COUNT_ARGS()".
>>>
>>> Also:
>>>
>>> Building i386:tools/perf ... failed
>>>
>>> util/evlist.c: In function ‘evlist__add_aux_dummy’:
>>> util/evlist.c:269:24: error: implicit declaration of function
>>> ‘evlist__dummy_event’; did you mean ‘evsel__is_dummy_event’?
>>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>      269 |  struct evsel *evsel = evlist__dummy_event(evlist);
>>>          |                        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>          |                        evsel__is_dummy_event
>>> util/evlist.c:269:24: error: initialization of ‘struct evsel *’ from
>>> ‘int’ makes pointer from integer without a cast
>>>
>>> There is indeed no 'evlist__dummy_event' function in v5.10.y.
>>>
>>> This is with v5.10.200-192-g550b7e1fee20. I am a bit puzzled why others
>>> don't seem to see those problems.
>>
>> Thanks for reporting allmodconfig build failures.
>>
>> My apologies.
>> The LKFT found allmodconfig failure lately due to infra issues /
>> timeouts,
>> the builds have been re-triggered manually.
>>
>>          arm:allmodconfig - FAILED
>>          arm64:allmodconfig - FAILED
>>
>> LKFT have stopped building perf on 5.x and 4.x branches, because we
>> reported several perf build issues and were not solved in the past.
>>
>
> Kind of makes (sad) sense; after all, I had stopped building perf on
> 4.14.y as well for the same reason. I'll do the same for 4.19.y and
> for all 5.x branches.

FWIW, I will continue to build and test perf for all branches that I can
easily run on our test rack, which are all of them except 4.14.y and 4.19.y.
--
Florian