From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6433AC433DB for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 15:53:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1064164EDC for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 15:53:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245049AbhCCPso (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2021 10:48:44 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44142 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1442903AbhCCKvR (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2021 05:51:17 -0500 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk (bhuna.collabora.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:25:2eeb:e3e3]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93C64C061793; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:37:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: gtucker) with ESMTPSA id 255631F40F32 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de, jonathanh@nvidia.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, Suram Suram , "kernelci-results@groups.io" References: <20210301193642.707301430@linuxfoundation.org> <32a6c609-642c-71cf-0a84-d5e8ccd104b1@collabora.com> From: Guillaume Tucker Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 10:34:11 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/03/2021 12:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 11:38:36AM +0000, Guillaume Tucker wrote: >> On 01/03/2021 19:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. >>> There are 661 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >>> let me know. >>> >>> Responses should be made by Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +0000. >>> Anything received after that time might be too late. >>> >>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: >>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.20-rc2.gz >>> or in the git tree and branch at: >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y >>> and the diffstat can be found below. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> greg k-h >> >> >> I've been through the KernelCI results for v5.10.20-rc2 and made >> this manual reply, hoping to eventually get it all automated. >> >> >> >> First there was one build regression with the arm >> realview_defconfig: >> >> kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘IRQ_WORK_INIT’; did you mean ‘IRQMASK_I_BIT’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> IRQ_WORK_INIT(late_wakeup_func); >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> IRQMASK_I_BIT >> kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: invalid initializer >> >> >> Full log: >> >> https://storage.kernelci.org/stable-rc/linux-5.10.y/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/arm/realview_defconfig/gcc-8/build.log > > That should now be resolved with a new -rc release for 5.4.y and 5.10.y. Confirmed in my other email for v5.10.20-rc4. >> There were also a few new build warnings. Here's a comparison of >> the number of builds that completed with no warnings, with at >> least one warning, and with an error between current stable and >> stable-rc: >> >> pass warn error >> v5.10.19 188 6 0 >> v5.10.20-rc2 180 15 1 >> >> Full details for these 2 revisions respectively: >> >> https://kernelci.org/build/stable/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19/ >> https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/ > > That error should be resolved. > > Warnings for non-x86 arches I have not been tracking to try to get down > to 0. That would be a good project for someone to work on... OK, so until we get to 0 we should probably ignore warnings when replying to the -rc review threads. If someone wants to pick this up in the meantime, kernelci.org can definitely help. >> Then on the runtime testing side, there was one boot regression >> detected on imx8mp-evk as detailed here: >> >> https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/603d69ec2924db6b9baddcb2/ >> >> I've re-run a couple of tests with both v5.10.19 and v5.10.20-rc2 >> and also got a failure with v5.10.19, so it looks like it's not >> really a new regression but more of an intermittent problem. >> Bisections are not enabled in NXP's lab so we don't have results >> about which commit caused it. We should chase this up, I've >> already asked if they're OK to enable bisection. Then we may >> bisect with an older revision that is really booting to find the >> root cause... > > Finding that root cause would be good, but doesn't really sound like a > regression yet :) Yep. Bisections are now getting enabled in the NXP test lab, so we'll share the news if it leads to something. FWIW the same test passed with v5.10.20-rc4. >> Presumably it's not OK to have this build error in the v5.10.20 >> release, assuming the boot regression is not new and can be >> ignored, but that's your call. So it seems a bit early for >> KernelCI to stamp it with Tested-by, even though it was tested >> but it's more a matter of clarifying the semantics and whether >> Tested-by implicitly means "works for me". What do you think? > > Try the new release to see if that fixes the build errors for you. All passing now. > And thanks for doing all of the testing here, this round was a rough one > for a variety of different reasons... You're welcome. That's what KernelCI is here for :) It'll just take a bit more typing to automate the replies and use the last stable release as a reference to detect new regressions on stable-rc. I think patches@kernelci.org you're putting on CC will make things easier in this respect, in fact that's what it was originally created for. Best wishes, Guillaume