OK, thanks. Huacai On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:20 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 08:50:07AM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:25 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:35:34PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 14:29 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > > > > > We can see the following messages with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y on > > > > > LoongArch: > > > > > > > > > > BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low! > > > > > turning off the locking correctness validator. > > > > > > > > > > This is because stack_trace_save() returns a big value after call > > > > > arch_stack_walk(), here is the call trace: > > > > > > > > > > save_trace() > > > > > stack_trace_save() > > > > > arch_stack_walk() > > > > > stack_trace_consume_entry() > > > > > > > > > > arch_stack_walk() should return immediately if unwind_next_frame() > > > > > failed, no need to do the useless loops to increase the value of > > > > > c->len in stack_trace_consume_entry(), then we can fix the above > > > > > problem. > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8a44ad71-68d2-4926-892f-72bfc7a67e2a@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > The fix makes sense, but I'm asking the same question again (sorry if > > > > it's noisy): should we Cc stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and/or make a PR for > > > > 6.3? > > > > > > > > To me a bug fixes should be backported into all stable branches affected > > > > by the bug, unless there is some serious difficulty. As 6.3 release > > > > will work on launched 3A5000 boards out-of-box, people may want to stop > > > > staying on the leading edge and use a LTS/stable release series. We > > > > can't just say (or behave like) "we don't backport, please use latest > > > > mainline" IMO :). > > > > > > It is a bug fix, isn't it ? It should be backported to v6.1+. Otherwise, > > > if your policy is to not backport bug fixes, I might as well stop testing > > > loongarch on all but the most recent kernel branch. Let me know if this is > > > what you want. If so, I think you should let all other regression testers > > > know that they should only test loongarch on mainline and possibly on > > > linux-next. > > This is of course a bug fix, but should Tiezhu resend this patch? Or > > just replying to this message with CC stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is > > enough? > > > > Normally the maintainer, before sending a pull request to Linus, would add > "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" to the patch. Actually sending the patch to > the stable@ mailing list is only necessary if it was applied to the > upstream kernel without Cc: stable@ in the commit message. > > Guenter
