On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:18:06PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:36:03PM -0600, Daniel Díaz wrote: > > Hello! > > > > > > On 1/25/21 12:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.11 release. > > > There are 199 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, 27 Jan 2021 18:31:44 +0000. > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.11-rc1.gz > > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Sanity results from Linaro’s test farm. > > Regressions detected. > > > [ ... ] > > > > Errors look like the following: > > > > make --silent --keep-going --jobs=8 O=/home/tuxbuild/.cache/tuxmake/builds/1/tmp ARCH=x86_64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- 'CC=sccache x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc' 'HOSTCC=sccache gcc' > > /builds/1nZbYji0zW0SkEnWMrDznWWzerI/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c: In function 'bsp_init_amd': > > /builds/1nZbYji0zW0SkEnWMrDznWWzerI/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c:572:3: error: '__max_die_per_package' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'topology_max_die_per_package'? > > 572 | __max_die_per_package = nodes_per_socket = ((ecx >> 8) & 7) + 1; > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > | topology_max_die_per_package > > > > Will find out more soon. > > > > This may be due to commit 76e2fc63ca40 ("x86/cpu/amd: Set __max_die_per_package > on AMD"). > > Our patches robot tells me: > > SHA 76e2fc63ca40 recursively fixed by: 1eb8f690bcb5 > > I don't see commit 1eb8f690bcb5 ("x86/topology: Make __max_die_per_package > available unconditionally") in the commit log. I have not checked, > but it is at least possible that applying it fixes the problem. Argh, the one time I don't run my "are there any fixes for the patches in the queue" script, and this pops up... Thanks for this, turns out there's another patch missing as well. I'll be doing a -rc2 soon for two queues... thanks, greg k-h
