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

[James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>]

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).


Thanks,

James