mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.1-rc1
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:28:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7e5e4c7d-07f4-6ccd-6796-cd6f021f222e@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wh9o1x43Me0kRZAwN-DmZzUgJzUhA2_v+Uo0Aq04hB_=A@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/17/22 10:39, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 5:35 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> Build results:
>>          total: 152 pass: 152 fail: 0
>> Qemu test results:
>>          total: 490 pass: 420 fail: 70
> 
> Strange. You claim zero build failures, but then:
> 
>> Build failures
>>
>> Building riscv:defconfig ... failed
> 
> so I think your stats may be wrong somehow ;)
> 

Puzzled ... the logs show that the builds for riscv[32/64] succeeded
with no error, but a manual build test still shows the failure.

Ah .... the build fails with gcc 11.3.0 / binutils 2.38, but passes
with gcc 11.3.0 / binutils 2.39. I had switched my builders to the
latter last night to fix a problem with powerpc builds. At the same time,
the manual test I just ran still used binutils 2.38.

That is interesting; I didn't expect that the binutils version would
make a difference, but apparently it does. Comparing defconfig:

10c10
< CONFIG_AS_VERSION=23900
---
 > CONFIG_AS_VERSION=23800
12c12
< CONFIG_LD_VERSION=23900
---
 > CONFIG_LD_VERSION=23800
260d259
< CONFIG_RISCV_DMA_NONCOHERENT=y
297,298d295
< CONFIG_CC_HAS_ZICBOM=y
< CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZICBOM=y
4134,4137d4130
< CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SETUP_DMA_OPS=y
< CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYNC_DMA_FOR_DEVICE=y
< CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYNC_DMA_FOR_CPU=y
< CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_DMA_PREP_COHERENT=y
4140,4142d4132
< CONFIG_DMA_NONCOHERENT_MMAP=y
< CONFIG_DMA_COHERENT_POOL=y
< CONFIG_DMA_DIRECT_REMAP=y

The build failure is only seen with CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZICBOM=n,
or in other words with binutils 2.38 or earlier.

>> mips, sparc64
>> -------------
>>
>> All big endian mips tests fail to reset after boot. The problem is
>> caused by commit 72a95859728a ("mfd: syscon: Remove repetition of the
>> regmap_get_val_endian()").
> 
> Bah. I had already archived that whole thread as "sorted out", but
> yeah, the revert clearly never made it to me for rc1.
> 

Yes, I saw a note along that line. The original reboot failure affected
sparc64 boot tests as well, which is gone now. Maybe some other fix for
the mips problem is in the works ?

> But it should be in the regmap queue (Lee/Andy?), so it is hopefully
> just a temporary thing.
> 
> In fact, it looks like all the failures have known fixes. So here's
> hoping that your list will be a whole lot cleaner by rc2.
> 
Hopefully yes.

Thanks,
Guenter


  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-17 18:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-16 23:01 Linus Torvalds
2022-10-17  1:53 ` linux-next: stats for 6.1-rc1 (was: Linux 6.1-rc1) Stephen Rothwell
2022-10-17  2:58 ` 6.1rc1: NFS memcpy warning on mount Dave Jones
2022-10-17  3:58   ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-10-17  4:17     ` Kees Cook
2022-10-17  4:20       ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-10-17  4:57   ` Kees Cook
2022-10-17 12:34 ` Linux 6.1-rc1 Guenter Roeck
2022-10-17 17:39   ` Linus Torvalds
2022-10-17 18:28     ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2022-10-17 18:54       ` Conor Dooley
2022-10-18  0:03     ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-12-25 19:05 Zeno Davatz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7e5e4c7d-07f4-6ccd-6796-cd6f021f222e@roeck-us.net \
    --to=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=ajones@ventanamicro.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=anup@brainfault.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=atishp@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
    --cc=guoren@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
    --cc=marcan@marcan.st \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®