* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review
2023-04-12 8:33 [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2023-04-12 16:53 ` Florian Fainelli
2023-04-12 19:41 ` Shuah Khan
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Florian Fainelli @ 2023-04-12 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow
On 4/12/23 01:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
> There are 93 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 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:28:02 +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-5.15.107-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.15.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
On ARCH_BRCMSTB using 32-bit and 64-bit ARM kernels, build tested on
BMIPS_GENERIC:
Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
--
Florian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review
2023-04-12 8:33 [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-04-12 16:53 ` Florian Fainelli
@ 2023-04-12 19:41 ` Shuah Khan
2023-04-12 20:41 ` Guenter Roeck
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2023-04-12 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, Shuah Khan
On 4/12/23 02:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
> There are 93 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 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:28:02 +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-5.15.107-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.15.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
Compiled and booted on my test system. No dmesg regressions.
Tested-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
thanks,
-- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review
2023-04-12 8:33 [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-04-12 16:53 ` Florian Fainelli
2023-04-12 19:41 ` Shuah Khan
@ 2023-04-12 20:41 ` Guenter Roeck
2023-04-12 21:47 ` [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review (possible amdgpu regression) Eddie Chapman
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2023-04-12 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:33:01AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
> There are 93 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 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:28:02 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
Build results:
total: 160 pass: 160 fail: 0
Qemu test results:
total: 499 pass: 499 fail: 0
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review (possible amdgpu regression)
2023-04-12 8:33 [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-04-12 20:41 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2023-04-12 21:47 ` Eddie Chapman
2023-04-13 14:46 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-04-13 2:04 ` [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Bagas Sanjaya
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Eddie Chapman @ 2023-04-12 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
> There are 93 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 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:28:02 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
I think I'm seeing a regression here in the amdgpu driver, though not
being a kernel dev I could be wrong.
I built and booted this today on an x86_64 machine (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X,
Gigabyte X570 UD motherboard) with 3 x AMD graphics cards (using names
from lspci output):
- Cape Verde GL [FirePro W4100]
- Oland XT [Radeon HD 8670 / R5 340X OEM / R7 250/350/350X OEM] (rev 83)
- Bonaire [Radeon R7 200 Series]
All three using the amdgpu driver (radeon module blacklisted).
This machine has been running vanilla 5.15 stable releases for a good
while, with the kernel updated with whatever the latest 5.15 release is
every 6 weeks or so. Never had any amdgpu problems.
To build 5.15.107-rc1 I applied the contents of the queue-5.15 directory
on top of 5.15.106, having synced the stable queue git repo up until
commit 344d8ad1b5dde387d1ce4d1be2641753b89dd10d (still the latest commit
as a type). This is what I have done for years running vanilla stable
kernels.
There was nothing out of the ordinary in the build output, but on
rebooting into 5.15.107-rc1 I had the following error in dmesg from 1
card only:
amdgpu 0000:0d:00.0: [drm:amdgpu_ib_ring_tests [amdgpu]] *ERROR* IB test
failed on vce0 (-110).
[drm:process_one_work] *ERROR* ib ring test failed (-110).
This was during bootup immediately after driver loading. X is not
running. 0000:0d:00.0 is the Bonaire card.
I then shutdown and fully powered off for a few minutes, booted
5.15.107-rc1 again, but the error on that card persisted exactly the same.
This was a regression for me as I've never had that error before on any
kernel release (I grepped through old kernel logs to check).
I then rebuilt 5.15.107-rc1 but without applying the following 4 patches:
drm-panfrost-fix-the-panfrost_mmu_map_fault_addr-error-path.patch
drm-amdgpu-fix-amdgpu_job_free_resources-v2.patch
drm-amdgpu-prevent-race-between-late-signaled-fences.patch
drm-bridge-lt9611-fix-pll-being-unable-to-lock.patch
On booting into the newly built kernel there was no error anymore,
amdgpu dmesg output was as normal, and the machine is running fine now
on that.
So I'm quite confident one of those patches introduced the error for me.
Having now looked at the contents of them I see the lt9611 is entirely
different hardware and I'm guessing the panfrost one probably is as
well, so most likely I didn't need to remove those 2.
This is not a great report and maybe not helpful (sorry) as
unfortunately I cannot try and narrow it down further to a single patch
as this machine has to stay running now for a while. I just crudely
tried yanking those 4 to hopefully get rid of the error and get the
machine running again. Also I didn't go on to test whether the card
actually worked as expected, maybe the error is harmless after all,
though it doesn't look insignificant.
As the error was only output for the Bonaire card (the other two were
fine), below is lspci -vvv output for that card only in case it helps.
If anyone would like further info just let me know.
Eddie
0d:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
[AMD/ATI] Bonaire [Radeon R7 200 Series] (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. [MSI] Bonaire
[Radeon R7 200 Series]
Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop-
ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx+
Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort-
<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
Latency: 0, Cache Line Size: 64 bytes
Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 135
IOMMU group: 29
Region 0: Memory at 880000000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=1G]
Region 2: Memory at 860000000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=8M]
Region 4: I/O ports at f000 [size=256]
Region 5: Memory at fce00000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256K]
Expansion ROM at fce40000 [disabled] [size=128K]
Capabilities: [48] Vendor Specific Information: Len=08 <?>
Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 3
Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2+ AuxCurrent=0mA
PME(D0-,D1+,D2+,D3hot+,D3cold-)
Status: D0 NoSoftRst+ PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
Capabilities: [58] Express (v2) Legacy Endpoint, MSI 00
DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s
<4us, L1 unlimited
ExtTag+ AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE+ FLReset-
DevCtl: CorrErr+ NonFatalErr+ FatalErr+ UnsupReq+
RlxdOrd+ ExtTag+ PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+
MaxPayload 256 bytes, MaxReadReq 512 bytes
DevSta: CorrErr+ NonFatalErr- FatalErr- UnsupReq+
AuxPwr- TransPend-
LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 8GT/s, Width x16, ASPM L0s L1,
Exit Latency L0s <64ns, L1 <1us
ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- ASPMOptComp+
LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes, Disabled- CommClk+
ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
LnkSta: Speed 8GT/s, Width x16
TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt-
DevCap2: Completion Timeout: Not Supported, TimeoutDis-
NROPrPrP- LTR-
10BitTagComp- 10BitTagReq- OBFF Not Supported,
ExtFmt+ EETLPPrefix+, MaxEETLPPrefixes 1
EmergencyPowerReduction Not Supported,
EmergencyPowerReductionInit-
FRS-
AtomicOpsCap: 32bit- 64bit- 128bitCAS-
DevCtl2: Completion Timeout: 50us to 50ms, TimeoutDis-
LTR- 10BitTagReq- OBFF Disabled,
AtomicOpsCtl: ReqEn-
LnkCap2: Supported Link Speeds: 2.5-8GT/s, Crosslink-
Retimer- 2Retimers- DRS-
LnkCtl2: Target Link Speed: 8GT/s, EnterCompliance-
SpeedDis-
Transmit Margin: Normal Operating Range,
EnterModifiedCompliance- ComplianceSOS-
Compliance Preset/De-emphasis: -6dB
de-emphasis, 0dB preshoot
LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -3.5dB,
EqualizationComplete+ EqualizationPhase1+
EqualizationPhase2+ EqualizationPhase3+
LinkEqualizationRequest-
Retimer- 2Retimers- CrosslinkRes: unsupported
Capabilities: [a0] MSI: Enable+ Count=1/1 Maskable- 64bit+
Address: 00000000fee00000 Data: 0000
Capabilities: [100 v1] Vendor Specific Information: ID=0001
Rev=1 Len=010 <?>
Capabilities: [150 v2] Advanced Error Reporting
UESta: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt-
UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol-
UEMsk: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt-
UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol-
UESvrt: DLP+ SDES+ TLP- FCP+ CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt-
UnxCmplt- RxOF+ MalfTLP+ ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol-
CESta: RxErr- BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout-
AdvNonFatalErr-
CEMsk: RxErr- BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout-
AdvNonFatalErr+
AERCap: First Error Pointer: 00, ECRCGenCap+ ECRCGenEn-
ECRCChkCap+ ECRCChkEn-
MultHdrRecCap- MultHdrRecEn- TLPPfxPres- HdrLogCap-
HeaderLog: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
Capabilities: [200 v1] Physical Resizable BAR
BAR 0: current size: 1GB, supported: 256MB 512MB 1GB
Capabilities: [270 v1] Secondary PCI Express
LnkCtl3: LnkEquIntrruptEn- PerformEqu-
LaneErrStat: 0
Capabilities: [2b0 v1] Address Translation Service (ATS)
ATSCap: Invalidate Queue Depth: 00
ATSCtl: Enable+, Smallest Translation Unit: 00
Capabilities: [2c0 v1] Page Request Interface (PRI)
PRICtl: Enable- Reset-
PRISta: RF- UPRGI- Stopped+
Page Request Capacity: 00000020, Page Request
Allocation: 00000000
Capabilities: [2d0 v1] Process Address Space ID (PASID)
PASIDCap: Exec+ Priv+, Max PASID Width: 10
PASIDCtl: Enable- Exec- Priv-
Kernel driver in use: amdgpu
Kernel modules: radeon, amdgpu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review (possible amdgpu regression)
2023-04-12 21:47 ` [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review (possible amdgpu regression) Eddie Chapman
@ 2023-04-13 14:46 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-06-07 22:24 ` Eddie Chapman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2023-04-13 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eddie Chapman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:47:13PM +0100, Eddie Chapman wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
> > There are 93 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 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:28:02 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >
>
> I think I'm seeing a regression here in the amdgpu driver, though not being
> a kernel dev I could be wrong.
>
> I built and booted this today on an x86_64 machine (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X,
> Gigabyte X570 UD motherboard) with 3 x AMD graphics cards (using names from
> lspci output):
> - Cape Verde GL [FirePro W4100]
> - Oland XT [Radeon HD 8670 / R5 340X OEM / R7 250/350/350X OEM] (rev 83)
> - Bonaire [Radeon R7 200 Series]
>
> All three using the amdgpu driver (radeon module blacklisted).
>
> This machine has been running vanilla 5.15 stable releases for a good while,
> with the kernel updated with whatever the latest 5.15 release is every 6
> weeks or so. Never had any amdgpu problems.
>
> To build 5.15.107-rc1 I applied the contents of the queue-5.15 directory on
> top of 5.15.106, having synced the stable queue git repo up until commit
> 344d8ad1b5dde387d1ce4d1be2641753b89dd10d (still the latest commit as a
> type). This is what I have done for years running vanilla stable kernels.
>
> There was nothing out of the ordinary in the build output, but on rebooting
> into 5.15.107-rc1 I had the following error in dmesg from 1 card only:
>
> amdgpu 0000:0d:00.0: [drm:amdgpu_ib_ring_tests [amdgpu]] *ERROR* IB test
> failed on vce0 (-110).
> [drm:process_one_work] *ERROR* ib ring test failed (-110).
>
> This was during bootup immediately after driver loading. X is not running.
> 0000:0d:00.0 is the Bonaire card.
>
> I then shutdown and fully powered off for a few minutes, booted 5.15.107-rc1
> again, but the error on that card persisted exactly the same.
>
> This was a regression for me as I've never had that error before on any
> kernel release (I grepped through old kernel logs to check).
>
> I then rebuilt 5.15.107-rc1 but without applying the following 4 patches:
>
> drm-panfrost-fix-the-panfrost_mmu_map_fault_addr-error-path.patch
> drm-amdgpu-fix-amdgpu_job_free_resources-v2.patch
> drm-amdgpu-prevent-race-between-late-signaled-fences.patch
> drm-bridge-lt9611-fix-pll-being-unable-to-lock.patch
>
> On booting into the newly built kernel there was no error anymore, amdgpu
> dmesg output was as normal, and the machine is running fine now on that.
>
> So I'm quite confident one of those patches introduced the error for me.
> Having now looked at the contents of them I see the lt9611 is entirely
> different hardware and I'm guessing the panfrost one probably is as well, so
> most likely I didn't need to remove those 2.
>
> This is not a great report and maybe not helpful (sorry) as unfortunately I
> cannot try and narrow it down further to a single patch as this machine has
> to stay running now for a while. I just crudely tried yanking those 4 to
> hopefully get rid of the error and get the machine running again. Also I
> didn't go on to test whether the card actually worked as expected, maybe the
> error is harmless after all, though it doesn't look insignificant.
>
> As the error was only output for the Bonaire card (the other two were fine),
> below is lspci -vvv output for that card only in case it helps. If anyone
> would like further info just let me know.
Ok, I've dropped the two drm-amdgpu-* patches from the tree for now.
Let me know if the release works properly for you or not.
thanks for testing and letting us know!
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review (possible amdgpu regression)
2023-04-13 14:46 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2023-06-07 22:24 ` Eddie Chapman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Eddie Chapman @ 2023-06-07 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow
On 13/04/2023 15:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:47:13PM +0100, Eddie Chapman wrote:
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
>>> There are 93 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 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:28:02 +0000.
>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>
>>
>> I think I'm seeing a regression here in the amdgpu driver, though not being
>> a kernel dev I could be wrong.
>>
>> I built and booted this today on an x86_64 machine (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X,
>> Gigabyte X570 UD motherboard) with 3 x AMD graphics cards (using names from
>> lspci output):
>> - Cape Verde GL [FirePro W4100]
>> - Oland XT [Radeon HD 8670 / R5 340X OEM / R7 250/350/350X OEM] (rev 83)
>> - Bonaire [Radeon R7 200 Series]
>>
>> All three using the amdgpu driver (radeon module blacklisted).
>>
>> This machine has been running vanilla 5.15 stable releases for a good while,
>> with the kernel updated with whatever the latest 5.15 release is every 6
>> weeks or so. Never had any amdgpu problems.
>>
>> To build 5.15.107-rc1 I applied the contents of the queue-5.15 directory on
>> top of 5.15.106, having synced the stable queue git repo up until commit
>> 344d8ad1b5dde387d1ce4d1be2641753b89dd10d (still the latest commit as a
>> type). This is what I have done for years running vanilla stable kernels.
>>
>> There was nothing out of the ordinary in the build output, but on rebooting
>> into 5.15.107-rc1 I had the following error in dmesg from 1 card only:
>>
>> amdgpu 0000:0d:00.0: [drm:amdgpu_ib_ring_tests [amdgpu]] *ERROR* IB test
>> failed on vce0 (-110).
>> [drm:process_one_work] *ERROR* ib ring test failed (-110).
>>
>> This was during bootup immediately after driver loading. X is not running.
>> 0000:0d:00.0 is the Bonaire card.
>>
>> I then shutdown and fully powered off for a few minutes, booted 5.15.107-rc1
>> again, but the error on that card persisted exactly the same.
>>
>> This was a regression for me as I've never had that error before on any
>> kernel release (I grepped through old kernel logs to check).
>>
>> I then rebuilt 5.15.107-rc1 but without applying the following 4 patches:
>>
>> drm-panfrost-fix-the-panfrost_mmu_map_fault_addr-error-path.patch
>> drm-amdgpu-fix-amdgpu_job_free_resources-v2.patch
>> drm-amdgpu-prevent-race-between-late-signaled-fences.patch
>> drm-bridge-lt9611-fix-pll-being-unable-to-lock.patch
>>
>> On booting into the newly built kernel there was no error anymore, amdgpu
>> dmesg output was as normal, and the machine is running fine now on that.
>>
>> So I'm quite confident one of those patches introduced the error for me.
>> Having now looked at the contents of them I see the lt9611 is entirely
>> different hardware and I'm guessing the panfrost one probably is as well, so
>> most likely I didn't need to remove those 2.
>>
>> This is not a great report and maybe not helpful (sorry) as unfortunately I
>> cannot try and narrow it down further to a single patch as this machine has
>> to stay running now for a while. I just crudely tried yanking those 4 to
>> hopefully get rid of the error and get the machine running again. Also I
>> didn't go on to test whether the card actually worked as expected, maybe the
>> error is harmless after all, though it doesn't look insignificant.
>>
>> As the error was only output for the Bonaire card (the other two were fine),
>> below is lspci -vvv output for that card only in case it helps. If anyone
>> would like further info just let me know.
>
> Ok, I've dropped the two drm-amdgpu-* patches from the tree for now.
> Let me know if the release works properly for you or not.
>
> thanks for testing and letting us know!
>
> greg k-h
Hello Greg,
My apologies just realised I never got back to you, as requested, to
confirm that, yes, that final release of 5.15.107 as well as other
5.15.x releases I've tried since then (including 5.15.115) have booted
up fine, without any unexpected errors, with these 3 AMD cards all using
the amdgpu driver, each with monitors connected.
Eddie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review
2023-04-12 8:33 [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-04-12 21:47 ` [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review (possible amdgpu regression) Eddie Chapman
@ 2023-04-13 2:04 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2023-04-13 13:28 ` Ron Economos
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Bagas Sanjaya @ 2023-04-13 2:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:33:01AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
> There are 93 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.
>
Successfully cross-compiled for arm64 (bcm2711_defconfig, GCC 10.2.0) and
powerpc (ps3_defconfig, GCC 12.2.0).
Tested-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review
2023-04-12 8:33 [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-04-13 2:04 ` [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Bagas Sanjaya
@ 2023-04-13 13:28 ` Ron Economos
2023-04-13 14:18 ` Naresh Kamboju
2023-04-13 14:51 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ron Economos @ 2023-04-13 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow
On 4/12/23 1:33 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
> There are 93 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 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:28:02 +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-5.15.107-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.15.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Built and booted successfully on RISC-V RV64 (HiFive Unmatched).
Note: This was built with a .config change from CONFIG_SIFIVE_L2 to
CONFIG_SIFIVE_CCACHE.
Tested-by: Ron Economos <re@w6rz.net>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review
2023-04-12 8:33 [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2023-04-13 13:28 ` Ron Economos
@ 2023-04-13 14:18 ` Naresh Kamboju
2023-04-13 14:51 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Naresh Kamboju @ 2023-04-13 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 14:06, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
> There are 93 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 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:28:02 +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-5.15.107-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.15.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Results from Linaro’s test farm.
No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386.
Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
## Build
* kernel: 5.15.107-rc1
* git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
* git branch: linux-5.15.y
* git commit: 415a9d81c640534731472ca364ec9cb77008a8e0
* git describe: v5.15.105-194-g415a9d81c640
* test details:
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.15.y/build/v5.15.105-194-g415a9d81c640
## Test Regressions (compared to v5.15.105)
## Metric Regressions (compared to v5.15.105)
## Test Fixes (compared to v5.15.105)
## Metric Fixes (compared to v5.15.105)
## Test result summary
total: 126997, pass: 105591, fail: 3746, skip: 17417, xfail: 243
## Build Summary
* arc: 5 total, 5 passed, 0 failed
* arm: 115 total, 114 passed, 1 failed
* arm64: 43 total, 41 passed, 2 failed
* i386: 33 total, 30 passed, 3 failed
* mips: 27 total, 26 passed, 1 failed
* parisc: 8 total, 8 passed, 0 failed
* powerpc: 27 total, 26 passed, 1 failed
* riscv: 11 total, 11 passed, 0 failed
* s390: 12 total, 11 passed, 1 failed
* sh: 14 total, 12 passed, 2 failed
* sparc: 8 total, 8 passed, 0 failed
* x86_64: 36 total, 34 passed, 2 failed
## Test suites summary
* boot
* fwts
* igt-gpu-tools
* kselftest-android
* kselftest-arm64
* kselftest-breakpoints
* kselftest-capabilities
* kselftest-cgroup
* kselftest-clone3
* kselftest-core
* kselftest-cpu-hotplug
* kselftest-cpufreq
* kselftest-drivers-dma-buf
* kselftest-efivarfs
* kselftest-filesystems
* kselftest-filesystems-binderfs
* kselftest-firmware
* kselftest-fpu
* kselftest-ftrace
* kselftest-futex
* kselftest-gpio
* kselftest-intel_pstate
* kselftest-ipc
* kselftest-ir
* kselftest-kcmp
* kselftest-kexec
* kselftest-kvm
* kselftest-lib
* kselftest-livepatch
* kselftest-membarrier
* kselftest-memfd
* kselftest-memory-hotplug
* kselftest-mincore
* kselftest-mount
* kselftest-mqueue
* kselftest-net
* kselftest-net-forwarding
* kselftest-net-mptcp
* kselftest-netfilter
* kselftest-nsfs
* kselftest-openat2
* kselftest-pid_namespace
* kselftest-pidfd
* kselftest-proc
* kselftest-pstore
* kselftest-ptrace
* kselftest-rseq
* kselftest-rtc
* kselftest-seccomp
* kselftest-sigaltstack
* kselftest-size
* kselftest-splice
* kselftest-static_keys
* kselftest-sync
* kselftest-sysctl
* kselftest-tc-testing
* kselftest-timens
* kselftest-timers
* kselftest-tmpfs
* kselftest-tpm2
* kselftest-user
* kselftest-vm
* kselftest-x86
* kselftest-zram
* kunit
* kvm-unit-tests
* libhugetlbfs
* log-parser-boot
* log-parser-test
* ltp-cap_bounds
* ltp-commands
* ltp-containers
* ltp-controllers
* ltp-cpuhotplug
* ltp-crypto
* ltp-cve
* ltp-dio
* ltp-fcntl-locktests
* ltp-filecaps
* ltp-fs
* ltp-fs_bind
* ltp-fs_perms_simple
* ltp-fsx
* ltp-hugetlb
* ltp-io
* ltp-ipc
* ltp-math
* ltp-mm
* ltp-nptl
* ltp-pty
* ltp-sched
* ltp-securebits
* ltp-smoke
* ltp-syscalls
* ltp-tracing
* network-basic-tests
* perf
* rcutorture
* v4l2-compliance
* vdso
--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review
2023-04-12 8:33 [PATCH 5.15 00/93] 5.15.107-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2023-04-13 14:18 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2023-04-13 14:51 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Harshit Mogalapalli @ 2023-04-13 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, Vegard Nossum, Darren Kenny
Hi Greg,
On 12/04/23 2:03 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.107 release.
> There are 93 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.
>
No problems seen on x86_64 and aarch64.
Tested-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>
Thanks,
Harshit
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread