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... 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-g92929e15cd...
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 errorv5.10.19 188 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...
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