On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 08:00:31AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 7:52 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 9/22/23 05:31, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > > > > On 22/09/2023 10:45, Jon Hunter wrote: > > >> Hi Greg, > > >> > > >> On 20/09/2023 12:28, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > >>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.55 release. > > >>> There are 139 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 Fri, 22 Sep 2023 11:28:09 +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-6.1.55-rc1.gz > > >>> or in the git tree and branch at: > > >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y > > >>> and the diffstat can be found below. > > >>> > > >>> thanks, > > >>> > > >>> greg k-h > > >> > > >> I am seeing some suspend failures with this update ... > > >> > > >> Test results for stable-v6.1: > > >> 11 builds: 11 pass, 0 fail > > >> 28 boots: 28 pass, 0 fail > > >> 130 tests: 124 pass, 6 fail > > >> > > >> Linux version: 6.1.55-rc1-gd5ace918366e > > >> Boards tested: tegra124-jetson-tk1, tegra186-p2771-0000, > > >> tegra194-p2972-0000, tegra194-p3509-0000+p3668-0000, > > >> tegra20-ventana, tegra210-p2371-2180, > > >> tegra210-p3450-0000, tegra30-cardhu-a04 > > >> > > >> Test failures: tegra124-jetson-tk1: pm-system-suspend.sh > > >> tegra186-p2771-0000: pm-system-suspend.sh > > >> tegra20-ventana: pm-system-suspend.sh > > >> tegra30-cardhu-a04: pm-system-suspend.sh > > >> > > >> Bisect is underway. > > > > > > > > > Bisect for this issue is also pointing to ... > > > > > > Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > interconnect: Fix locking for runpm vs reclaim > > > > > > Looks like all the Tegra issues are related to this. > > > > > > > This isn't surprising because upstream commit 136191703038 ("interconnect: Teach > > lockdep about icc_bw_lock order") silently fixes it without Fixes: tag. If you > > look into that patch you'll see that the the missing call to mutex_unlock() is > > added to icc_sync_state(). > > Oh, indeed, it looks like that hunk ended up in the wrong commit, and > I didn't notice because both were merged at the same time Thanks, I've queued that fix up now as well. greg k-h
