Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:28:46 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5.4 000/134] 5.4.231-rc1 review | From | Guenter Roeck <> |
| |
On 2/3/23 11:07, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:54:21AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:18:26AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 07:56:19AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:11:45AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.231 release. >>>>>> There are 134 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 Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:09:58 +0000. >>>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Building ia64:defconfig ... failed >>>>> -------------- >>>>> Error log: >>>>> <stdin>:1511:2: warning: #warning syscall clone3 not implemented [-Wcpp] >>>>> arch/ia64/kernel/mca_drv.c: In function 'mca_handler_bh': >>>>> arch/ia64/kernel/mca_drv.c:179:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'make_task_dead' >>>>> >>>>> Caused by "exit: Add and use make_task_dead.". Did that really have to be backported ? >>>> >>>> Yup, it does! >>>> >>>> Eric, any help with this? >>>> >>> >>> Adding "#include <linux/sched/task.h>" to the affected file would probably >>> be the easy fix. I did a quick check, and it works. >>> >>> Note that the same problem is seen in v4.14.y and v4.19.y. Later >>> kernels don't have the problem. >>> >> >> This problem arises because <linux/mm.h> transitively includes >> <linux/sched/task.h> in 5.10 and later, but not in 5.4 and earlier. >> >> Greg, any preference for how to handle this situation? >> >> Just add '#include <linux/sched/task.h>' to the affected .c file (and hope there >> are no more affected .c files in the other arch directories) and call it a day? >> >> Or should we backport the transitive inclusion (i.e., the #include added by >> commit 80fbaf1c3f29)? Or move the declaration of make_task_dead() into >> <linux/kernel.h> so that it's next to do_exit()? > > One question: do *all* the arches actually get built as part of the testing for > each stable release? If so, we can just add the #include to the .c files that > need it. If not, then it would be safer to take one of the other approaches. >
Yes, I do build all architectures for each stable release.
FWIW, I only noticed that one build failure due to this problem.
Guenter
| |