* [Buildroot] Patch for linux-headers @ 2020-12-17 0:30 Petr Vorel 2021-01-05 21:35 ` Peter Korsgaard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Petr Vorel @ 2020-12-17 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hi, I wonder if it's allowed to add patch to add patch for linux-headers. There would have to be more versions for the patch (due headers being built for more versions). I'd like to use my upstreamed patch [1] which fixes "redefinition of struct sysinfo" build failure on MUSL. This so far required to patch affected packages or simply disable them (depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_MUSL). Actually, much simpler patch from Khem Raj could be used [2]. Kind regards, Petr [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a85cbe6159ffc973e5702f70a3bd5185f8f3c38d [2] https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/main/linux-headers/0003-remove-inclusion-of-sysinfo.h-in-kernel.h.patch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] Patch for linux-headers 2020-12-17 0:30 [Buildroot] Patch for linux-headers Petr Vorel @ 2021-01-05 21:35 ` Peter Korsgaard 2021-01-05 22:49 ` Petr Vorel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Peter Korsgaard @ 2021-01-05 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot >>>>> "Petr" == Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > I wonder if it's allowed to add patch to add patch for linux-headers. > There would have to be more versions for the patch (due headers being built for > more versions). I'd like to use my upstreamed patch [1] which fixes > "redefinition of struct sysinfo" build failure on MUSL. > This so far required to patch affected packages or simply disable them > (depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_MUSL). > Actually, much simpler patch from Khem Raj could be used [2]. It can be done if needed, but it is naturally easier to handle without. I noticed that you got some patches applied to the stable kernels related to this recently - Do those fix the issues, or is an additional patch needed? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] Patch for linux-headers 2021-01-05 21:35 ` Peter Korsgaard @ 2021-01-05 22:49 ` Petr Vorel 2021-01-05 23:07 ` Peter Korsgaard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Petr Vorel @ 2021-01-05 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hi Peter, > >>>>> "Petr" == Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> writes: > > Hi, > > I wonder if it's allowed to add patch to add patch for linux-headers. > > There would have to be more versions for the patch (due headers being built for > > more versions). I'd like to use my upstreamed patch [1] which fixes > > "redefinition of struct sysinfo" build failure on MUSL. > > This so far required to patch affected packages or simply disable them > > (depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_MUSL). > > Actually, much simpler patch from Khem Raj could be used [2]. > It can be done if needed, but it is naturally easier to handle > without. Understand. More versions and kernel checking would be needed. I implemented it, but IMHO it'd have to also require Buildroot toolchain rebuild. > I noticed that you got some patches applied to the stable > kernels related to this recently - Do those fix the issues, or is an > additional patch needed? Yes, it fixes the issue. Thus no patching is needed. I didn't expect the fix would be accepted in stable, but it has been accepted (in the end it's a fix). OK, we need to wait till kernel stable releases, update kernel versions in Buildroot. But IMHO it still requires Buildroot toolchain rebuild. Or am I wrong? BTW I'm waiting for it for iproute2 upgrade (originally [1] and [2], now [3]). Kind regards, Petr [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200818183832.7947-2-petr.vorel at gmail.com/ [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200903155728.19448-2-petr.vorel at gmail.com/ [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20201104171416.1062-1-petr.vorel at gmail.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] Patch for linux-headers 2021-01-05 22:49 ` Petr Vorel @ 2021-01-05 23:07 ` Peter Korsgaard 2021-01-07 1:23 ` Petr Vorel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Peter Korsgaard @ 2021-01-05 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot >>>>> "Petr" == Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> writes: Hi, >> It can be done if needed, but it is naturally easier to handle >> without. > Understand. More versions and kernel checking would be needed. > I implemented it, but IMHO it'd have to also require Buildroot toolchain > rebuild. Indeed. >> I noticed that you got some patches applied to the stable >> kernels related to this recently - Do those fix the issues, or is an >> additional patch needed? > Yes, it fixes the issue. Thus no patching is needed. Ok, great! > OK, we need to wait till kernel stable releases, update kernel versions in > Buildroot. But IMHO it still requires Buildroot toolchain rebuild. Or am I wrong? Yes, the external toolchains will need to be rebuilt, but perhaps we can blacklist those in the autobuilders until the toolchains are all rebuilt. > BTW I'm waiting for it for iproute2 upgrade (originally [1] and [2], now [3]). Ahh, ok. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] Patch for linux-headers 2021-01-05 23:07 ` Peter Korsgaard @ 2021-01-07 1:23 ` Petr Vorel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Petr Vorel @ 2021-01-07 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hi Peter, > >>>>> "Petr" == Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > >> It can be done if needed, but it is naturally easier to handle > >> without. > > Understand. More versions and kernel checking would be needed. > > I implemented it, but IMHO it'd have to also require Buildroot toolchain > > rebuild. > Indeed. I backported it to all LTS and stable branches (except 5.9 which is EOL) It has been released to some of them, for the rest the patch is in stable-queue.git => will be released soon. > >> I noticed that you got some patches applied to the stable > >> kernels related to this recently - Do those fix the issues, or is an > >> additional patch needed? > > Yes, it fixes the issue. Thus no patching is needed. > Ok, great! > > OK, we need to wait till kernel stable releases, update kernel versions in > > Buildroot. But IMHO it still requires Buildroot toolchain rebuild. Or am I wrong? > Yes, the external toolchains will need to be rebuilt, but perhaps we can > blacklist those in the autobuilders until the toolchains are all rebuilt. Do you mean to disable MUSL based toolchains for affected packages? I'm carrying patch for LTP, which is not going to be upstreamed. Sure, I could drop this patch and add: depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_MUSL, but I expect more packages affected by <linux/sysinfo.h> bug. > > BTW I'm waiting for it for iproute2 upgrade (originally [1] and [2], now [3]). > Ahh, ok. I've prepared package for v5.8.0 which was blocked by this, then v5.9.0. There is already v5.10.0. I'm not sure what is better: allow BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_UCLIBC to have iproute2, but block new features (we still have v5.7.0). Kind regards, Petr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-07 1:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-12-17 0:30 [Buildroot] Patch for linux-headers Petr Vorel 2021-01-05 21:35 ` Peter Korsgaard 2021-01-05 22:49 ` Petr Vorel 2021-01-05 23:07 ` Peter Korsgaard 2021-01-07 1:23 ` Petr Vorel
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.