On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 05:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:52:22AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:

quoted

On 01/11/2021 09:40, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:34:08AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:

quoted

On 01/11/2021 09:01, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 07:06:23PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 02:31:23PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:

quoted

On 29/10/2021 12:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

It's now used in a coresight driver that can be a loadable module:

ERROR: modpost: "this_cpu_has_cap" [drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.ko] undefined!

Fixes: 8a1065127d95 ("coresight: trbe: Add infrastructure for Errata handling")

Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Tested-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>

Will, Catalin, Mathieu,

Do you have a preference on how this fix can be pulled in ? This may
be safe to go via coresight tree if it is not too late. Otherwise,
it could go via the arm64 tree.

I think Will already closed/tagged the arm64 tree for the upcoming
merging window, though he could take it as a fix afterwards.

If it doesn't conflict with the arm64 for-next/core, it's fine by me to
go through the coresight tree.

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
Not sure if we actually want this to be exported, this is my local
workaround for the randconfig build bot.
---
    arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 1 +
    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index ecbdff795f5e..beccbcfa7391 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c

@@ -2864,6 +2864,7 @@ bool this_cpu_has_cap(unsigned int n)
          return false;
    }
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(this_cpu_has_cap);

EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL? I think this_cpu_has_cap() is a bit more more
specialised than cpus_have_const_cap().

With that:

Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

Yes, at this stage I think it's best for this to go via the Coresight tree.
So with the _GPL export:

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>

If that doesn't work for some reason, I can take it next week after the
initial arm64 queue has been merged. Please just let me know.

As I understand correctly, this will now need to go via arm64 tree. The
CoreSight tree changes are pulled into Greg's tree and the next it will
happen is for the next release. Usually the fixes don't end up there
during the -rc cycles. So, I believe it is better if this goes via
arm64.

Hmm, are you saying that Coresight drivers don't receive fixes outside of
the merge window? That sounds sub-optimal...

Unfortunately thats how it works today. We should fix this.

Mathieu, Greg,

Do you have any thoughts on how to address this ?

What?  That's crazy, if there are bugfixes needed of course I would take
them during the -rc cycle, that is explicitly what it is there for!

I have sent patches to the char-misc tree several times during -rc
cycles.  As Greg points out, proceeding otherwise would not make
sense.

It's up to the maintainer of the subsystem to send me the fixes to get
into the -final kernel release, I don't pick them up on my own unless
asked to by them.

I will send a pull request for this when I receive another patch with
Catalin's annotation and collected RB tags.

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel