On 10/04/17 15:47, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/07/2017 06:11 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2017 01:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>> On 04/07/2017 07:58 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>> tl;dr:
>>>>>> Please apply
>>>>>>
>>>>>> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
>>>>>> partially revert "xen: Remove event channel notification through
>>>>>> Xen PCI platform device"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to all stable branches which have a version of the original broken
>>>>>> commit. This includes at least 4.9.y.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Background:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> osstest service owner writes ("[linux-4.9 baseline test] 107238: tolerable FAIL"):
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-intel 13 xen-boot/l1 fail never pass
>>>>>> osstest doesn't consider this a regresion because it looks for
>>>>>> regressions within a branch, and this is the first test of Linux 4.9.
>>>>>> However, this is a regression from the kernel we are currently using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L1 dom0 console log:
>>>>>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/107238/test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-intel/huxelrebe0---var-log-xen-osstest-serial-l1.guest.osstest.log
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to have got stuck halfway through booting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The message
>>>>>> (XEN) *** Serial input -> Xen (type 'CTRL-x' three times to switch input to DOM0)
>>>>>> shows where osstest timed out on this test, and started its log
>>>>>> capture process (including collecting debug key output).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Complete logs for this job here:
>>>>>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/107238/test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-intel/info.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen Gross tells me that this is due to the lack of
>>>>>> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Ian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: Stefano, Boris: did you already request a backport of this commit?
>>>>>> If not, why not ?
>>>>> No, but this should indeed be backported to 4.9+
>>>> Boris, are you going to do that?
>>> Is there anything that needs to be done beyond just applying it to 4.9
>>> (4.10 apparently already has it).
>> No, I don't think so. 4.9 already has the offending commit.
>
>
> Looks like there will be a new version of the original patch
> (72a9b186292) so we should hold off with backport request to 4.9:
>
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-04/msg01468.html
TBH: I'm not convinced by the reasoning why 72a9b186292 has to be
reworked: Do we really care for Xen versions < 4.0 and a theoretical
problem (after all the author admitted the bug isn't being hit in
reality due to a short-circuit in the code)?
And even if we do: I'd rather add another patch to stable later than
keeping a real bug in Linux 4.9 which has been hit at least 3 times
up to now (by Stefano, George and Ian).
Juergen