Apply d799769188529abc6cbf035a10087a51f7832b6b to 5.17 and 5.15?

[Michael Ellerman]

Nathan Chancellor <nathan at kernel.org> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 08:13:13AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 05:46:52PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > Nathan Chancellor <nathan at kernel.org> writes:
>> > > Hi Greg, Sasha, and Michael,
>> > >
>> > > Commit d79976918852 ("powerpc/64: Add UADDR64 relocation support") fixes
>> > > a boot failure with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y kernels linked with recent
>> > > versions of ld.lld [1]. Additionally, it resolves a separate boot
>> > > failure that Paul Menzel reported [2] with ld.lld 13.0.0. Is this a
>> > > reasonable backport for 5.17 and 5.15? It applies cleanly, resolves both
>> > > problems, and does not appear to cause any other issues in my testing
>> > > for both trees but I was curious what Michael's opinion was, as I am far
>> > > from a PowerPC expert.
>> > >
>> > > This change does apply cleanly to 5.10 (I did not try earlier branches)
>> > > but there are other changes needed for ld.lld to link CONFIG_RELOCATABLE
>> > > kernels in that branch so to avoid any regressions, I think it is safe
>> > > to just focus on 5.15 and 5.17.
>> > 
>> > I considered tagging it for stable, but I wanted it to get a bit of
>> > testing first, it's a reasonably big patch.
>> > 
>> > I think we're reasonably confident it doesn't introduce any new bugs,
>> > but more testing time is always good.
>> > 
>> > So I guess I'd be inclined to wait another week or so before requesting
>> > a stable backport?
>> 
>> Sure, thanks for the response! I'll ping this thread on Monday, May 2nd,
>> so that we have two more RC releases to try and flush out any lingering
>> issues. If you do receive any reports of regressions, please let me
>> know.
>
> I decided to wait an extra day just to give people the opportunity to
> install -rc5 and run it through their tests. I have not heard of any
> reports yet, are there any further objections?

No objection.

cheers