On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:04:04 -0800 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:00 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 18:51:51 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:43:25AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:20:10 -0800 (PST) "kernelci.org bot" <bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Details: https://kernelci.org/boot/id/5c666ea959b514b017fe6017 > > > > > > Plain log: https://storage.kernelci.org//next/master/next-20190215/arm/multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_SMP=n/gcc-7/lab-collabora/boot-am335x-boneblack.txt > > > > > > HTML log: https://storage.kernelci.org//next/master/next-20190215/arm/multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_SMP=n/gcc-7/lab-collabora/boot-am335x-boneblack.html > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > But what actually went wrong? Kernel doesn't boot? > > > > > > > > The linked logs show the kernel dying early in boot before the console > > > > comes up so yeah. There should be kernel output at the bottom of the > > > > logs. > > > > > > I assume Dan is distracted - I'll keep this patchset on hold until we > > > can get to the bottom of this. > > > > Michal had asked if the free space accounting fix up addressed this > > boot regression? I was awaiting word on that. > > hm, does bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx actually read emails? Let's try info@ as well.. Thanks, yes. The logs don't give much to go on, so I can only iterate on this as fast as I can drum up feedback. > > Is it possible to determine whether this regression is still present in > current linux-next? > > > I assume you're not willing to entertain a "depends > > NOT_THIS_ARM_BOARD" hack in the meantime? > > We'd probably never be able to remove it. And we don't know whether > other systems might be affected. Right, and agree. I was just grasping at straws because I know of users that want to take advantage of this and was lamenting the upcoming apology tour saying, "sorry, maybe v5.2". I had always expected that platforms outside of x86-servers would need to do their own validation / evaluation before recommending this, and the regression concern is why it defaulted to disabled... but boot regressions are boot regressions.
