On 02/03/2021 12:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 11:38:36AM +0000, Guillaume Tucker wrote: >> 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 > > That should now be resolved with a new -rc release for 5.4.y and 5.10.y. Confirmed in my other email for v5.10.20-rc4. >> 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/ > > That error should be resolved. > > Warnings for non-x86 arches I have not been tracking to try to get down > to 0. That would be a good project for someone to work on... OK, so until we get to 0 we should probably ignore warnings when replying to the -rc review threads. If someone wants to pick this up in the meantime, kernelci.org can definitely help. >> 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... > > Finding that root cause would be good, but doesn't really sound like a > regression yet :) Yep. Bisections are now getting enabled in the NXP test lab, so we'll share the news if it leads to something. FWIW the same test passed with v5.10.20-rc4. >> 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? > > Try the new release to see if that fixes the build errors for you. All passing now. > And thanks for doing all of the testing here, this round was a rough one > for a variety of different reasons... You're welcome. That's what KernelCI is here for :) It'll just take a bit more typing to automate the replies and use the last stable release as a reference to detect new regressions on stable-rc. I think patches@xxxxxxxxxxxx you're putting on CC will make things easier in this respect, in fact that's what it was originally created for. Best wishes, Guillaume
