[PATCH] arm64: perf: fix syscalltbl path base

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2025, at 11:05, James Clark wrote:
> On 21/12/2025 9:48 pm, Joel May wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025, at 03:28, Leo Yan wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>
> No worries, thanks for sending the fix. Yes I think it could be ok to 
> apply your patch anyway. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the 
> same page with both fixes fixing the same thing.

I still don't think that Leo's series is correct.

> You might want to drop the fixes tag though to avoid confusion if Leo's 
> one gets accepted, because then technically it doesn't fix anything any 
> more. Keeping Leo's fixes: tag is a bit better because it fixes 
> additional things and targets an older commit.

Before that gets applied, someone should explain why arm64 needs
any special treatment at all. A lot of work has gone into making
the syscall table handling consistent across architectures, so
whether we ship a copy of the generated header for perf, we
generate a new copy or we rely on 'make headers_install', should
should really be done the same way across every architecture.

     Arnd