[PATCH] [RFC] arm64: export this_cpu_has_cap

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:52:22AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 01/11/2021 09:40, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:34:08AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > On 01/11/2021 09:01, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 07:06:23PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 02:31:23PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > > > > On 29/10/2021 12:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It's now used in a coresight driver that can be a loadable module:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ERROR: modpost: "this_cpu_has_cap" [drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.ko] undefined!
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Fixes: 8a1065127d95 ("coresight: trbe: Add infrastructure for Errata handling")
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose at arm.com>
> > > > > > Tested-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose at arm.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Will, Catalin, Mathieu,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you have a preference on how this fix can be pulled in ? This may
> > > > > > be safe to go via coresight tree if it is not too late. Otherwise,
> > > > > > it could go via the arm64 tree.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think Will already closed/tagged the arm64 tree for the upcoming
> > > > > merging window, though he could take it as a fix afterwards.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If it doesn't conflict with the arm64 for-next/core, it's fine by me to
> > > > > go through the coresight tree.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Not sure if we actually want this to be exported, this is my local
> > > > > > > workaround for the randconfig build bot.
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >     arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 1 +
> > > > > > >     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > > > > > index ecbdff795f5e..beccbcfa7391 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > > > > > @@ -2864,6 +2864,7 @@ bool this_cpu_has_cap(unsigned int n)
> > > > > > >     	return false;
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(this_cpu_has_cap);
> > > > > 
> > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL? I think this_cpu_has_cap() is a bit more more
> > > > > specialised than cpus_have_const_cap().
> > > > > 
> > > > > With that:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, at this stage I think it's best for this to go via the Coresight tree.
> > > > So with the _GPL export:
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will at kernel.org>
> > > > 
> > > > If that doesn't work for some reason, I can take it next week after the
> > > > initial arm64 queue has been merged. Please just let me know.
> > > 
> > > As I understand correctly, this will now need to go via arm64 tree. The
> > > CoreSight tree changes are pulled into Greg's tree and the next it will
> > > happen is for the next release. Usually the fixes don't end up there
> > > during the -rc cycles. So, I believe it is better if this goes via
> > > arm64.
> > 
> > Hmm, are you saying that Coresight drivers don't receive fixes outside of
> > the merge window? That sounds sub-optimal...
> 
> Unfortunately thats how it works today. We should fix this.
> 
> Mathieu, Greg,
> 
> Do you have any thoughts on how to address this ?

What?  That's crazy, if there are bugfixes needed of course I would take
them during the -rc cycle, that is explicitly what it is there for!

It's up to the maintainer of the subsystem to send me the fixes to get
into the -final kernel release, I don't pick them up on my own unless
asked to by them.

thanks,

greg k-h