[TLDR: I'm adding this report to the list of tracked Linux kernel
regressions; the text you find below is based on a few templates
paragraphs you might have encountered already in similar form.
See link in footer if these mails annoy you.]
On 22.12.23 19:31, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Coly,
>
> Yesterday I noticed that a few of our nvdimm tests were failing. I bisected
> the problem to the following commit.
>
> aa511ff8218b ("badblocks: switch to the improved badblock handling code")
>
> Reverting this patch fixed our tests.
>
> I've also dug into the code a bit and I believe the algorithm for
> badblocks_check() is broken (not yet sure about the other calls). At the
> very least I see the bb->p pointer being indexed with '-1'. :-(
>
> I did notice that this work was due to a bug report in badblock_set().
> Therefore, I'm not sure of that severity of that fix is vs a revert. But
> at this point I'm not seeing an easy fix so I'm in favor of a revert.
Thanks for the report. To be sure the issue doesn't fall through the
cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, the Linux kernel regression
tracking bot:
#regzbot ^introduced aa511ff8218b
#regzbot title badblocks: nvdimm tests were failing after switch to
impoved code
#regzbot ignore-activity
This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already
discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when
the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or
something else totally wrong? Then just reply and tell me -- ideally
while also telling regzbot about it, as explained by the page listed in
the footer of this mail.
Developers: When fixing the issue, remember to add 'Link:' tags pointing
to the report (the parent of this mail). See page linked in footer for
details.
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
That page also explains what to do if mails like this annoy you.
