Am Dienstag, 6. Juni 2023, 08:56:16 CEST schrieb Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis): > On 06.06.23 04:36, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 01:24:25PM +0200, Malte Starostik wrote: > >> chiming in here as I'm experiencing what looks like the exact same issue, > >> also on a Lenovo Z13 notebook, also on Arch: > >> bisect result: > >> 904e28c6de083fa4834cdbd0026470ddc30676fc is the first bad commit > >> commit 904e28c6de083fa4834cdbd0026470ddc30676fc > >> Merge: a738688177dc 2f7f4efb9411 > >> Author: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Wed Feb 22 10:44:31 2023 +0100 > >> > >> Merge branch 'for-6.3/hid-bpf' into for-linus > > > > Hmm, seems like bad bisect (bisected to HID-BPF which IMO isn't related > > to amd_sfh). Can you repeat the bisection? I'm digging further. That merge is what git bisect ended at, but admittedly my git skills and especially with a large codebase aren't too advanced. While at 904e28c6de083fa4834cdbd0026470ddc30676fc, git show only shows the diff for tools/testing/selftests/Makefile which can't really be the culprit. However, git diff @~..@ has changes in drivers/hid/amd-sfh-hid/Kconfig (seems innocuous, too), but also some changes to drivers/hid/hid-core.c. Nothing obvious either, but at least it's not too far from the trace. > Well, amd_sfh afaics apparently interacts with HID (see trace earlier in > the thread), so it's not that far away. But it's a merge commit, which > is possible, but doesn't happen every day. So a recheck might really be > a good idea. I will recheck some more, the Oops only happens with roughly 30 % chance during boot. When it doesn't, there seem to be no other issues until the next boot either. I made sure to reboot a few times after each bisect step, will look deeper into the area. > > Anyway, tl;dr: > >> A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post > >> Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting? > > > > [...] > > BTW, I'm not sure if this really is helpful. Teaching this to upcoming > kernel developers is definitely worth it, but I wonder if pushing this > on all reporters might do more harm than good. I also wonder if asking > them a bit more kindly might be wiser (e.g. instead of "Anyway, tl;dr:" > something like "BTW, please do not top-post:" or something like that maybe). Thanks, and I agree in general. However, my case was in fact even worse :-) I'm totally aware of the badness of top-posting. It happened because I had a draft of the reply. Set In-Reply-To from the link in the wev archive and pasted the previous message from there. Couple days later, I just pasted the result on top and disregarded the existing text. BR Malte
