On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:02 PM Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 11:13 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > > Here's the next consolidated pull request. It has two normal -stable updates > > for 5.10 and 5.4, as well as the first steps in bringing 5.13 in as the > > reference kernel (and then dropping 5.4 from master). > > > > I've built and booted 5.13 as the default for qemu*, as well as building it > > against both musl and glibc with the 5.13 libc-headers. I didn't run into > > any issues, and neither did my AB runs (I'd like to think it is all the > > other patches that have been sent as linux-yocto-dev moved foward that made > > this relatively few patches now). > > > > I've also ensured that AB intermittent fixes are in place for 5.13, so it > > is safe from that point of vew as well. Folks without exlcit versions set, > > will get 5.13, but it is already sane and fit for that purpose. > > > > Obviously you can pick and chose what you need from this if there are > > issues, > > and I'm around to trouble shoot anything that pops up. > > Thanks for this. In general it looks good, there is just one failure worrying > me a bit: > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/119/builds/425 > > which in diffoscope speak is: > > http://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/repro-fail/oe-reproducible-20210702-c3hu90kc/packages/diff-html/ > > You may wonder what this pull request has to do with a gcc-sanitisers failure? > > If you don't speak dwarfish or elvish, it means that > perf_branch_sample_type_shift > was declared on line 162 in one build and 182 in another. I wondered about a > bit flip however it is two bits and linux/perf_events.h has > perf_branch_sample_type_shift at line number 162 in 5.10 and 182 is 5.13 and > that > file comes from linux-libc-headers. The logical conclusion is that one was > built > with one header and the other, from the other header. Why/how this could > happen > I simply don't know. The problem build came from sstate so there is no real > audit trail to follow :(.
I've done multiple header fixups with perf and libc-headers disagreeing, due to captured copies being different from the uapi. This is likely a variant of that. ... that being said, I've never seen anything that varied between builds. It either broke or it didn't. This is libc-headers 5.13 and the 5.10 perf ? Bruce > > I'm not sure this blocks the pull request as the issue is probably somewhere > else > and this just exposed it but any ideas on what happened are very welcome... > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > -- - Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end - "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#153514): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/153514 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/83942258/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
