On 01/03/2021 19:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > There are 661 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 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +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/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.20-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-5.10.y > and the diffstat can be found below. > > thanks, > > greg k-h I've been through the KernelCI results for v5.10.20-rc2 and made this manual reply, hoping to eventually get it all automated. First there was one build regression with the arm realview_defconfig: kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘IRQ_WORK_INIT’; did you mean ‘IRQMASK_I_BIT’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] IRQ_WORK_INIT(late_wakeup_func); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ IRQMASK_I_BIT kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: invalid initializer Full log: https://storage.kernelci.org/stable-rc/linux-5.10.y/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/arm/realview_defconfig/gcc-8/build.log There were also a few new build warnings. Here's a comparison of the number of builds that completed with no warnings, with at least one warning, and with an error between current stable and stable-rc: pass warn error v5.10.19 188 6 0 v5.10.20-rc2 180 15 1 Full details for these 2 revisions respectively: https://kernelci.org/build/stable/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19/ https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/ Then on the runtime testing side, there was one boot regression detected on imx8mp-evk as detailed here: https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/603d69ec2924db6b9baddcb2/ I've re-run a couple of tests with both v5.10.19 and v5.10.20-rc2 and also got a failure with v5.10.19, so it looks like it's not really a new regression but more of an intermittent problem. Bisections are not enabled in NXP's lab so we don't have results about which commit caused it. We should chase this up, I've already asked if they're OK to enable bisection. Then we may bisect with an older revision that is really booting to find the root cause... Presumably it's not OK to have this build error in the v5.10.20 release, assuming the boot regression is not new and can be ignored, but that's your call. So it seems a bit early for KernelCI to stamp it with Tested-by, even though it was tested but it's more a matter of clarifying the semantics and whether Tested-by implicitly means "works for me". What do you think? Best wishes, Guillaume
