On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:42:21PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:20:04PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:37:16PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:58:55AM -0500, Daniel Díaz wrote:
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 08:29, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/14/19 10:00 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.67 release.
> > > > > > There are 91 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 Fri 16 Aug 2019 04:55:34 PM UTC.
> > > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Building x86_64:tools/perf ... failed
> > > > > --------------
> > > > > Error log:
> > > > > Warning: arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h differs from kernel
> > > > > Warning: arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h differs from kernel
> > > > > PERF_VERSION = 4.9.189.ge000f87
> > > > > util/machine.c: In function ‘machine__create_module’:
> > > > > util/machine.c:1088:43: error: ‘size’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘die’?
> > > > > if (arch__fix_module_text_start(&start, &size, name) < 0)
> > > > > ^~~~
> > > > > die
> > > > > util/machine.c:1088:43: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> > > >
> > > > We noticed this exact failure but not on 4.19. For us, 4.19's perf builds fine.
> > > >
> > > > On 4.9, perf failed with the error you described, as it looks like
> > > > it's missing 9ad4652b66f1 ("perf record: Fix wrong size in
> > > > perf_record_mmap for last kernel module"), though I have not verified
> > > > yet.
> > >
> > > I've queued that up now, and will push out the 4.9-rc tree, so let's see
> > > if that fixes it or not.
> > >
> > I think you may have pushed the 4.19 branch. Sorry for the confusion
> > I caused by attributing the problem to the wrong branch.
>
> Ah, I did, good catch. I've pushed the 4.9 one now. At least I applied
> the patch to the correct branch :)
>
Confirmed fixed with v4.9.189-42-g9a2a343109e5.
Thanks,
Guenter
