Re: next/master boot bisection: next-20190617 on sun8i-h2-plus-orangepi-zero

From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
To: Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com, mgalka@collabora.com,
	broonie@kernel.org, matthew.hart@linaro.org,
	enric.balletbo@collabora.com, Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>,
	Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@st.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: next/master boot bisection: next-20190617 on sun8i-h2-plus-orangepi-zero
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:58:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFBinCA7gMLJ=jPqgRgHcBABBvC7bWVt8VJhLZ5uN=03WL1UWQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7d0a9da1-0b42-d4e9-0690-32d58a6d27de@collabora.com>

Hi Guillaume,

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:53 PM Guillaume Tucker
<guillaume.tucker@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> On 18/06/2019 21:42, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:53 PM Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> This seems to have broken on several sunxi SoCs, but also a MIPS SoC
> >> (pistachio_marduk):
> >>
> >> https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20190618/mips/pistachio_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-baylibre-seattle/boot-pistachio_marduk.html
> > today I learned why initializing arrays on the stack is important
> > too bad gcc didn't warn that I was about to shoot myself (or someone
> > else) in the foot :/
> >
> > I just sent a fix: [0]
> >
> > sorry for this issue and thanks to Kernel CI for even pointing out the
> > offending commit (this makes things a lot easier than just yelling
> > that "something is broken")
>
> Glad that helped :)
>
> If you would be so kind as to credit our robot friend in your
> patch, it'll be forever grateful:
>
>   Reported-by: "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>
sure
do you want me to re-send my other patch or should I just reply to it
adding the Reported-by tag and hope that Dave will catch it when
applying the patch?
in either case: I did mention in the patch description that Kernel CI caught it

by the way: I didn't know how to credit the Kernel CI bot.
syzbot / syzkaller makes that bit easy as it's mentioned in the
generated email, see [0] for a (random) example
have you considered adding the Reported-by to the generated email?

Martin

[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/19/638