On 29.11.23 09:08, Coly Li wrote: >> 2023年11月29日 07:47，Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> 写道： >> >> I notice a regression report that is rather well-handled on Bugzilla [1]. >> Quoting from it: >> >>> >>> when booting from 6.7-rc2, compiled with clang, I get this warning on one of my 3 bcachefs volumes: >>> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 712 at block/badblocks.c:1284 badblocks_check (block/badblocks.c:1284) >>> The reason why isn't clear, but the stack trace points to an error in md error handling. >>> This bug didn't happen in 6.6 >>> there are 3 commits in 6.7-rc2 which may cause them, >>> in attachment: >>> - decoded stacktrace of dmesg >>> - kernel .config >> [1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218184 > > It seems the improved bad blocks code caught a zero-size bio request > from upper layer, this improper behavior was silently neglected before. > It might be too early or simple to decide this is a regression, Well, it's often better to add an issue to the tracking even if there is a chance that it's not a real regression, as the issue might otherwise fall through the cracks. But given... > especially Janpieter closes the report for now. ...this I agree that this is likely not worth tracking, hence: #regzbot inconclusive: maybe not a regression and report can not reproduce it anymore 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.
