On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 05:00:43PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 16:54, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 21:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.6.76 release. > > > There are 389 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 Sat, 08 Feb 2025 15:51:12 +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/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.6.76-rc2.gz > > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.6.y > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > There are three different regressions found and reporting here, > > We are working on bisecting and investigating these issues, > > We observed a kernel warning on QEMU-ARM64 and FVP while running the > newly added selftest: arm64: check_hugetlb_options. This issue appears > on 6.6.76 onward and 6.12.13 onward, as reported in the stable review [1]. > However, the test case passes successfully on stable 6.13. > > The selftests: arm64: check_hugetlb_options test was introduced following > the recent upgrade of kselftest test sources to the stable 6.13 branch. > As you are aware, LKFT runs the latest kselftest sources (from stable > 6.13.x) on 6.12.x, 6.6.x, and older kernels for validation purposes. > > >From Anders' bisection results, we identified that the missing patch on > 6.12 is likely causing this regression: > > First fixed commit: > [25c17c4b55def92a01e3eecc9c775a6ee25ca20f] > hugetlb: arm64: add MTE support > > Could you confirm whether this patch is eligible for backporting to > 6.12 and 6.6 kernels? > If backporting is not an option, we will need to skip running this > test case on older kernels. The test case itself should properly "skip" if the feature is not present in the kernel. Why not fix that up instead? thanks, greg k-h
