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

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

[Kevin Hilman]

"kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org> writes:

> next/master boot bisection: next-20190617 on sun8i-h2-plus-orangepi-zero
>
> Summary:
>   Start:      a125097c8410 Add linux-next specific files for 20190617
>   Details:    https://kernelci.org/boot/id/5d07987659b51412add51503
>   Plain log:  https://storage.kernelci.org//next/master/next-20190617/arm/multi_v7_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-baylibre/boot-sun8i-h2-plus-orangepi-zero.txt
>   HTML log:   https://storage.kernelci.org//next/master/next-20190617/arm/multi_v7_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-baylibre/boot-sun8i-h2-plus-orangepi-zero.html
>   Result:     ce4ab73ab0c2 net: stmmac: drop the reset delays from struct stmmac_mdio_bus_data
>
> Checks:
>   revert:     PASS
>   verify:     PASS
>
> Parameters:
>   Tree:       next
>   URL:        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
>   Branch:     master
>   Target:     sun8i-h2-plus-orangepi-zero
>   CPU arch:   arm
>   Lab:        lab-baylibre
>   Compiler:   gcc-8
>   Config:     multi_v7_defconfig
>   Test suite: boot
>
> Breaking commit found:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> commit ce4ab73ab0c27c6a3853695aa8ec0f453c6329cd
> Author: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
> Date:   Sat Jun 15 12:09:31 2019 +0200
>
>     net: stmmac: drop the reset delays from struct stmmac_mdio_bus_data
>     
>     Only OF platforms use the reset delays and these delays are only read in
>     stmmac_mdio_reset(). Move them from struct stmmac_mdio_bus_data to a
>     stack variable inside stmmac_mdio_reset() because that's the only usage
>     of these delays.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
>     Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

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

Kevin

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

[Martin Blumenstingl]

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")


Martin


[0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1118313/

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

[Guillaume Tucker]

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>

Thanks,
Guillaume

> Martin
> 
> 
> [0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1118313/
> 

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

[Martin Blumenstingl]

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

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

[Guillaume Tucker]

Hi Martin,

On 18/06/2019 21:58, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> 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?

Well that's no big deal so replying would already be great.  The
important part is that the fix gets applied.

> in either case: I did mention in the patch description that Kernel CI caught it

I see, thanks!

> 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?

Yes, we've got some bugs to fix first but that will be added to
the email report soon (next week I guess).  Thanks for the
suggestion though.

Guillaume

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