Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: make pat and mtrr independent from each other

From: Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Cc: jbeulich@suse.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	regressions@lists.linux.dev, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: make pat and mtrr independent from each other
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:28:36 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5c40a423-f70a-abb8-360c-a601c5b157fe@netscape.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6294958a-177a-5c67-47c6-3a95c23ac58e@leemhuis.info>

On 8/16/2022 12:53 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 16.08.22 18:16, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 8/16/2022 10:41 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> On 15.08.22 20:17, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> >>> On 8/15/2022 2:00 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And FWIW: I've seen indicators that a solution to resolve this is
> >>>> hopefully pretty close now.
> >>> That's good to know. But I must ask, can you provide a link to a public
> >>> discussion that indicates a fix is close?
> >> I just searched for the commit id of the culprit yesterday like this:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=bdd8b6c982*
> >>
> >> Which brought me to this message, which looks like Boris applied a
> >> slightly(?) modified version of Jan's patch to a branch that afaik is
> >> regularly pushed to Linus:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/166055884287.401.612271624942869534.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/
> >>
> >> So unless problems show up in linux-next I expect this will land in
> >> master soon (and a bit later be backported to stable due to the CC
> >> stable tag).
> > 
> > OK, that's exactly the kind of thing I am looking for. It would be
> > nice if regzbot could have found that patch in that tree and
> > display it in the web interface as a notable patch. Currently,
> > regzbot is only linking to a dead patch that does not even fix
> > the regression as a notable patch associated with this regression.
> > 
> > If regzbot is not yet smart enough to find it, could you take the
> > time to manually intervene with a regzbot command so that
> > patch is displayed as a notable patch for this regression?
>
> regzbot will notice when the patch hit's Linux next,

IIUC, regzbot might not notice because the patch lacks a Link: tag
to the original regression report. The Link tag is to Jan's patch
that was posted sometime in April, I think, which also lacks the
Link tag to the original report of the regression which did not
happen until May 4. If regzbot is smart enough to notice that the
patch also has a Fixes: tag for the commit that was identified as
bad in the original regression report, then I expect regzbot will
find it.

Best regards,

Chuck