On 7/8/22 09:41, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 12:21:45AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > Subject: mm-page_alloc-protect-pcp-lists-with-a-spinlock-fix >> >> > Date: Thu Jul 7 01:06:35 PM PDT 2022 >> >> > >> >> > add missing local_unlock_irqrestore() on contention path >> >> >> >> Doh, that's true and something to fix, although patch 7 did remove the bug >> >> later in the same series so that wouldn't explain the lkp report for patch >> >> 7. The reason lkp test robot complained was AFAICS that it was testing v4, >> >> as I just replied there. >> > >> > Sorry I didn't bother to reply until now: it did test v5, at this >> > commit, not the whole series. >> >> I meant this report that appears to be for v4 (full series including patch 7): >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YsFk%2FqU+QtWun04h@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/ >> That reported a bug due to missing unpin that was previously reported for v4 >> and fixed in v5. >> >> I'm not aware of a lkp report for v5 (found only Dan's) but yeah, hitting >> the (similar but not identical) bug fixed by this -fix would indeed be >> possible in v5 if patch 7 was not applied. > > My report is the LKP report? Oh, right, sorry, I missed that the mail from you contains also Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > Some of the Smatch warnings from LKP get sent to me and then I look them > over and either delete them or hit forward. I don't have visibility > into the LKP process more than just looking over the warnings so I can't > say how it picks which patches to test off the mailing list. Thanks for the clarification! Vlastimil > regards, > dan carpenter
