[PATCH] arm64: perf: fix syscalltbl path base

[Joel May]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025, at 03:28, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 12:52:24PM +0200, James Clark wrote:
> > On 15/12/2025 11:33, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2025, at 09:47, James Clark wrote:
> > > > On 15/12/2025 00:12, Joel May wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Joel,
> > > > 
> > > > There is a similar fix on the list here:
> > > > 
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20251204-perf_fix_syscall_header-v1-1-b8e27f74ed6a@arm.com/
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure if commit 1 alone will also fix your issue, or we'd need to
> > > > collapse both of the commits in that set.
> 
> We need to apply both patches in the share link - we need to apply the
> second patch to revert generating unistd_64.h in libperf.

Yes, applying both of those patches will mitigate my problem.

Neither of those patches update syscalltbl in
arm/arm64/kernel/Makefile.syscalls though.  Based on the context in
scripts/Makefile.asm-headers, it looks like syscalltbl is always intended
to be relative to srctree.  So, my patch increases consistency, even if
it's not fixing any known problem (after the other patches are applied).

Whether headers are dynamically generated or not, it seems like this is
something that can be improved anyway.

This is my first time contributing to the Linux kernel, so please bare with
my ignorance.  I don't know whether it's acceptable to consider patches
that conceptually improve something without an actual problem they're
solving.

Thanks,
--Joel