From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from madras.collabora.co.uk (madras.collabora.co.uk [46.235.227.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB63B3D393; Fri, 19 May 2023 08:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a0c:5a83:9203:ad00:12f5:ce1d:c8ab:bb96]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: rcn) by madras.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B4C76605960; Fri, 19 May 2023 09:35:45 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1684485345; bh=yjBON+zRg7ZjvIUz47H8LbZbKfsz5bLofO+XkmCgFJ4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-reply-to:Date:From; b=IcoakT/g2c1m4s5VFi+BkmaHbAURqRJja//PpqPmnXeQhBejvqWfOSVV8XpGGdzhM Cmzsj032C+qIC/W74j1UQ3UtfaCoLNmCqMeHeWcwogS/5o6MizX+FgVLqmnEXlw7IQ UjPXL7k6eZ40unEus5b2+yVrU7cqDkq3IbstrCfb4XFPgx8patMgoJDtebofTCsJ08 D8wJ9Ek732eFA8aAcVdqkppa/X/oZjhl1sM11DFn40ND+DWAl1BK2Zm2SXwR3I7xEF XePn0EICqwI/x32Jsz+8om2MJ9M2E91WX9YPWiskvD4RTx4CeJv1XueK/dxREryOTc dZLzNJkefYBbQ== From: Ricardo =?utf-8?Q?Ca=C3=B1uelo?= To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Shreeya Patel , Michal Marek , Masahiro Yamada , Linux Kernel Mailing List , clang-built-linux , Bill Wendling , Nathan Chancellor , regressions@lists.linux.dev, "gustavo.padovan\@collabora.com" , Guillaume Charles Tucker , denys.f@collabora.com, kernelci@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Makefile.compiler: replace cc-ifversion with compiler-specific macros References: <20220919170828.3718437-1-ndesaulniers@google.com> <597ef55f-e7c1-ab60-b4aa-0071ff4b5e0e@collabora.com> <89961dfc-d40f-78e4-5d34-b86b7d152182@collabora.com> <17c91d37-7d9c-0df4-2438-2b30ca0b5777@collabora.com> <878rdlk9bi.fsf@rcn-XPS-13-9305.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> In-reply-to: Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 10:35:42 +0200 Message-ID: <875y8ok9b5.fsf@rcn-XPS-13-9305.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On jue, may 18 2023 at 14:12:30, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > That's a higher risk change (and has my name on the tested-by tag, yikes). > > So is that the culprit of the boot failure you're observing? Right now it is. Here's a test run using that commit (5750121ae7382ebac8d47ce6d68012d6cd1d7926): https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10373216 Here's one with the commit right after that one (26ef40de5cbb24728a34a319e8d42cdec99f186c): https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10371513 Then one with 26ef40de5cbb24728a34a319e8d42cdec99f186c with a revert commit for 5750121ae7382ebac8d47ce6d68012d6cd1d7926 on top: https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10371882 But I'm not confident enough to jump ahead and call this a kernel regression, specially after the bisector confidently said that about your commit and then it turned out none of us could reproduce it. There have been some cases where a commit made a test fail (kernel failing to load, for instance) and the real problem was that the kernel got bigger than the target was capable of handling. So not a problem with the commit at all, it was just that the memory mappings needed to be redefined for that target. What I'm saying is that sometimes a regression report is really uncovering a problem in the test setup rather than introducing a bug. Maybe this is one of those cases. Cheers, Ricardo