Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/83] 5.10.196-rc1 review

Florian Fainelli
2023-09-20T18:47:15Z

On 9/20/23 11:42, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sept 2023 at 11:13, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com
> <mailto:f.fainelli@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 9/20/23 04:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.196
> release.
> > There are 83 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, 22 Sep 2023 11:28:09 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >
> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.196-rc1.gz <https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.196-rc1.gz>
> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> >
>  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git <http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git> linux-5.10.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> perf fails to build on ARM, ARM64 and MIPS with:
>
> fixdep: error opening depfile:
> /local/users/fainelli/buildroot/output/bmips/build/linux-custom/tools/perf/pmu-events/.pmu-events.o.d:
> No such file or directory
> make[5]: *** [pmu-events/Build:33:
> /local/users/fainelli/buildroot/output/bmips/build/linux-custom/tools/perf/pmu-events/pmu-events.o]
> Error 2
> make[4]: *** [Makefile.perf:653:
> /local/users/fainelli/buildroot/output/bmips/build/linux-custom/tools/perf/pmu-events/pmu-events-in.o]
> Error 2
> make[3]: *** [Makefile.perf:229: sub-make] Error 2
> make[2]: *** [Makefile:70: all] Error 2
> make[1]: *** [package/pkg-generic.mk:294 <http://pkg-generic.mk:294>:
> /local/users/fainelli/buildroot/output/bmips/build/linux-tools/.stamp_built]
> Error 2
> make: *** [Makefile:27: _all] Error 2
>
> this is caused by 653fc524e350b62479529140dc9abef05abbcc29 ("perf
> build:
> Update build rule for generated files"). Reverting that commit plus
> 5804de1f2324ddcfe3f0b6ad58fcfe4d344e0471 ("perf jevents: Switch
> build to
> use jevents.py") gets us going again.
>
>
> Given the perf tool is backward compatible, does doing backports make sense?

For bugfixes certainly this does not appear to be one though?
--
Florian