Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/30] 4.19.235-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 12:14:08PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 3/14/22 2:57 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 02:14:41PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > On 14/03/2022 14:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 01:58:12PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > > > On 14/03/2022 11:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.235 release.
> > > > > > There are 30 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 Wed, 16 Mar 2022 11:27:22 +0000.
> > > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> 
> > > > > > James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> > > > > >        KVM: arm64: Reset PMC_EL0 to avoid a panic() on systems with no PMU
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The above is causing the following build error for ARM64 ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c: In function ‘reset_pmcr’:
> > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c:624:3: error: implicit declaration of function ‘vcpu_sys_reg’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > >      vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) = 0;
> > > > >      ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c:624:32: error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
> > > > >      vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) = 0;
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Is this also broken in Linus's tree?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > No, Linus' tree is not broken. However, I don't see this change in Linus'
> > > tree (v5.17-rc8).
> > 
> > Ah, this is a "fix something broken in stable-only" type patch :(
> 
> > James, I'm dropping this from the 4.19, 4.9, and 4.14 trees right now as
> > it looks broken :(
> 
> What would you prefer I do here:
>  1 post a revert for the original problematic backport.
>  2 post versions of this to fix each of the above 3 stable kernels. (instead of putting conditions in the stable tag).

I don't see what I did wrong with the "conditions" in the existing
commit you sent.  How did I get it wrong?

Best case, send a patch series for each kernel tree.  That way I "know"
I got the right thing here.

thanks,

greg k-h