Re: Apply d799769188529abc6cbf035a10087a51f7832b6b to 5.17 and 5.15?

From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Apply d799769188529abc6cbf035a10087a51f7832b6b to 5.17 and 5.15?
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 14:34:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YnGfyLAkB3NG+Ms2@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YmF0iajmlAg6Kj9I@dev-fedora.thelio-3990X>

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 <nathan@kernel.org> 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