Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/567] 5.15.99-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 05:06:23PM -0600, Daniel Díaz wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On 07/03/23 10:55, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.99 release.
> > There are 567 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 Thu, 09 Mar 2023 16:57:34 +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-5.15.99-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-5.15.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> We see Perf failing to compile on: arm, arm64, i386, x86_64, under OpenEmbedded (GCC 11.3) when building for the following machines:
> * Dragonboard 410c (arm64)
> * Dragonboard 845c (arm64)
> * Juno (arm64)
> * X15 (arm)
> * intel-core2-32 (i386)
> * intel-corei7-64 (x86_64)
> 
> Error:
> -----8<-----
> util/intel-pt-decoder/intel-pt-decoder.c: In function 'intel_pt_eptw_lookahead_cb':
> util/intel-pt-decoder/intel-pt-decoder.c:1445:7: error: 'INTEL_PT_CFE' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'INTEL_PT_CBR'?
>  1445 |  case INTEL_PT_CFE:
>       |       ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>       |       INTEL_PT_CBR
> util/intel-pt-decoder/intel-pt-decoder.c:1445:7: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> util/intel-pt-decoder/intel-pt-decoder.c:1446:7: error: 'INTEL_PT_CFE_IP' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'INTEL_PT_BEP_IP'?
>  1446 |  case INTEL_PT_CFE_IP:
>       |       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>       |       INTEL_PT_BEP_IP
> util/intel-pt-decoder/intel-pt-decoder.c:1447:7: error: 'INTEL_PT_EVD' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'INTEL_PT_OVF'?
>  1447 |  case INTEL_PT_EVD:
>       |       ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>       |       INTEL_PT_OVF
> ----->8-----

Should now be fixed.

thanks,

greg k-h