Hello fellow maintainers!
I just pushed v5.10.199-rt97-rc1 (v5.10-rt-next) to kernel.org for testing.
The merge worked flawlessly but the build test failed with an undefined
function. That was easy to track and fix, but I am not sure if the method
I chose for the fix is the desired one.
In short, I performed the merge and then added the following patch to fix
the build issue. Is this OK or should I have added this extra code in the
merge?
Also, for the release, should I send the usual stable update message and
add a note such as "the following change was required to fix a build
problem: ..."?
Best regards,
Luis
---
net: replace raw_write_seqcount_t_begin by do_raw_write_seqcount_begin
Commit a8dd21118b0fa ("seqlock: Prefix internal seqcount_t-only macros with a
"do_""), among other changes, renames the function raw_write_seqcount_t_begin
to do_raw_write_seqcount_begin. That commit did not cover the changes from
the RT-only commit 81ce24cd24a9e ("net: Properly annotate the try-lock for the
seqlock"), which are fixed here.
Fixes: 81ce24cd24a9e ("net: Properly annotate the try-lock for the seqlock")
Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/net/sch_generic.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/net/sch_generic.h b/include/net/sch_generic.h
index 72be68652bb84..eee11a1c93216 100644
--- a/include/net/sch_generic.h
+++ b/include/net/sch_generic.h
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ static inline bool qdisc_run_begin(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
* Variant of write_seqcount_t_begin() telling lockdep that a
* trylock was attempted.
*/
- raw_write_seqcount_t_begin(s);
+ do_raw_write_seqcount_begin(s);
seqcount_acquire(&s->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
return true;
}
--
2.41.0
