Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/138] 4.19.325-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 07:13:50PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > ------------------
> > Note, this is the LAST 4.19.y kernel to be released.  After this one, it
> > is end-of-life.  It's been 6 years, everyone should have moved off of it
> > by now.
> > ------------------
> 
> Releasing 130 patches as end-of-life kernel is not good idea. There
> may be regression hiding between them...

It is better to have a regression for a fix then ignoring known fixes
every time.  You seriously would want the final 4.19.y release to be
missing 100+ known fixes?  That's just not ok for anyone who is waiting
until the last week of this kernel to change (and I know many are, which
is odd...)

> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.325 release.
> > There are 138 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.
> 
> Build fails:
> 
> https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/jobs/8532423815
> 
>   CC      drivers/pinctrl/uniphier/pinctrl-uniphier-pro4.o
> 3895
>   CC      drivers/pci/of.o
> 3896
> drivers/rtc/rtc-st-lpc.c: In function 'st_rtc_probe':
> 3897
> drivers/rtc/rtc-st-lpc.c:233:11: error: 'IRQF_NO_AUTOEN' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'IRQ_NOAUTOEN'?
> 3898
>            IRQF_NO_AUTOEN, pdev->name, rtc);
> 3899
>            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 3900
>            IRQ_NOAUTOEN
> 3901
> drivers/rtc/rtc-st-lpc.c:233:11: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> 3902
>   CC      drivers/pci/quirks.o
> 3903
> make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:303: drivers/rtc/rtc-st-lpc.o] Error 1
> 3904
> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:544: drivers/rtc] Error 2
> 3905
> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> 3906
>   CC      drivers/pinctrl/uniphier/pinctrl-uniphier-sld8.o
> 3907
>   CC      drivers/soc/renesas/r8a7743-sysc.o

What arch is this?  And can you not wrap error logs like this please?

thanks,

greg k-h