On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:16:40AM +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:47:25AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.0.10 release.
> > There are 314 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, 25 Nov 2022 08:45:20 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> Build test (gcc version 12.2.1 20221016):
> mips: 52 configs -> 1 failure
> arm: 100 configs -> 2 failures
> arm64: 3 configs -> no failure
> x86_64: 4 configs -> no failure
> alpha allmodconfig -> no failure
> csky allmodconfig -> no failure
> powerpc allmodconfig -> 1 failure
> riscv allmodconfig -> no failure
> s390 allmodconfig -> no failure
> xtensa allmodconfig -> no failure
>
> Note:
> 1. As reported by others arm mips and powerpc allmodconfig fails with:
> drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c:1299:13: error: 'rtc_wake_setup' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> 1299 | static void rtc_wake_setup(struct device *dev)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Should now be fixed, thanks.
>
> 2. arm imxrt_defconfig fails with:
>
> In file included from ./include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h:5,
> from security/device_cgroup.c:8:
> ./include/linux/bpf.h:2310:20: error: static declaration of 'bpf_prog_inc_misses_counter' follows non-static declaration
> 2310 | static inline void bpf_prog_inc_misses_counter(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ./include/linux/bpf.h:1970:14: note: previous declaration of 'bpf_prog_inc_misses_counter' with type 'void(struct bpf_prog *)'
> 1970 | void notrace bpf_prog_inc_misses_counter(struct bpf_prog *prog);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Caused by a1ba348f5325 ("bpf: Prevent bpf program recursion for raw tracepoint probes").
Oh, nice catch! I messed up the backport of this commit, and put the
prototype in the wrong place in the .h file. Let me push out a -rc2
with this moved a bit to see if that solves the problem.
Interesting that your build tests were the only one that caught this.
thanks,
greg k-h
