From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f174.google.com (mail-pl1-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C3F3249E8 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2024 18:08:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707070097; cv=none; b=RSUkOMDBDYBwSZJQ/GRH4pp8AHztOpZURK6UjTbUJbdFOYmwfcU1KX4JhGIrjiSkciZnQXt/WtbVC47RuDfoEtYbl/be5zT6q8x0FFp+iWQHKKghhwT3xhBO6kKAqCMPUHU8DIIoLBFG8pYaHxwtDUMEwofhVbOzxjKbFLCRgXE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707070097; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LsC40AMF4FxgkVNPN1VbVyiRUgnKT2nk33fPhpC4e5Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=H1fQIoemaYodbp/zWgAb8x74DFiM06pvAga3hKsBhqN/QUkZ8Ut+96w2BdxXd1KcwuRh4zO/MLaaEf7EazaIyoXQPynhAIsSV34dN+sDS0T6HD47FY4beFh7mMdJgJsiBolhqyroVIH/gEkIhb8HLKkS6Q6mJywMcKGLJy8k+a8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=roeck-us.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=emqSVTcY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=roeck-us.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="emqSVTcY" Received: by mail-pl1-f174.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d7431e702dso30352015ad.1 for ; Sun, 04 Feb 2024 10:08:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1707070095; x=1707674895; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=frULKy1z/RPKJ4KixO4JHsDRBiZlI6+kKVJ70iqS4Rw=; b=emqSVTcY8WMGa/QVB85J9i4f2BcmufGUW5CuyEUAwr1yIoyvI3VCvMJ9P6XgWB4PSZ c0N7UHU3Py8XUVkSeZLaUkLKe94nT/eHNxubS7chqdXpxUK+ojcretICnnLYTRa1PLr+ /cZFQSstycjIx1fDIW/BL0u2c0Go1AoXp5z0i/u+/kMcs4kIU8qPlkRPY06AC/cjkHjs Z9GZTvZ/Zf2lrkpCmfgOVykfysisDfx2HC7ALeZFKmCzOxETyJTc/GqsCBOMstTxrDtF WzdJ3LKFcGNZYLFRyXAf8NBXSKhNHSVqqDmcQG2JwV+gGRhd716mGTe1dV+BJ+5jXMKf aqLw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707070095; x=1707674895; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=frULKy1z/RPKJ4KixO4JHsDRBiZlI6+kKVJ70iqS4Rw=; b=Rc6pKOhXUMl8OFUH3yFrvlK69h2gV/SsVwvdIjtOEY/wVvx+wT/ZuiFU/70vhj404j tkk1jX/GOIdO0BZePyy16XtEf43NniCft5hLBB2aywUuSS0VinARRm+HHlxplUT5II+e EJ+82tQ3/YdSiKUGVMi3OaSViQnBFJfKr810+4E1zLuXlOm3wqa8caR7U0YmmO6VAlJH sRqnINuwgKw/OTjqJ8AZhNKgKbjW6J6PrsHfXNhXaqA5952VZXCKn3LHhk/QQweCrzUl GCSjLwAw2pRKWx8JCkKdiomaHBXOS6myFiIb+kkuFH0O/GsVSRYRbkLMbQ5prp7ioVBO waIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YydT45geyu9Rn+z8Ccrxy70TZB8T8zzvsVzfOTICH3rj4frCE83 FFpAt3/byYAfZgUgQgdwn9/1HHFsy5QGUiY90+4blTrJ5FKKAewGkuHpuaOh X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHaDvEYmxWLIEZkibC9kk1tXDW3w5DPACn3ROMJG7oFek8ehmhwDSgHYG5FUP8CBbU8ypHD0w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b688:b0:1d7:78df:b1d4 with SMTP id c8-20020a170902b68800b001d778dfb1d4mr12284681pls.39.1707070094651; Sun, 04 Feb 2024 10:08:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.roeck-us.net ([2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id kh3-20020a170903064300b001d956e84582sm4878957plb.91.2024.02.04.10.08.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 04 Feb 2024 10:08:13 -0800 (PST) Sender: Guenter Roeck Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:08:12 -0800 From: Guenter Roeck To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 6.8-rc3 Message-ID: <82dc5ae4-690e-4f61-a6a2-41793ef651c4@roeck-us.net> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 12:39:17PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Hmm. A slightly larger rc3 that I'd have hoped for, although at this > stage in the release process it's not something that really worries me > yet. > > Aside from the usual driver fixes (with sound, gpu and nvme standing > out), we've got mainly filesystem fixes (tracefs and ext4) and a big > chunk of tooling updates (perf and selftests). > > The rest is mostly a random collection of fixes all over. Fairly quiet > on the arch side, with mainly just some parisc fixes. > Build results: total: 155 pass: 155 fail: 0 Qemu test results: total: 549 pass: 548 fail: 1 Unit test results: pass: 127073 fail: 891 (some of those are duplicates, still working on the script) an385:mps2_defconfig:mps2-an385:initrd still crashes due to the problems with the test_ip_fast_csum unit test. A fix is pending, but it does not address the unit test failures reported below. Notable warning backtraces: - BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c:3749 As mentioned last week, due to mmc code calling gpiod_get_value_cansleep() with interrupts disabled. Unit test failures: - test_ip_fast_csum and test_csum_ipv6_magic fail on big endian machines. # test_ip_fast_csum: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/checksum_kunit.c:589 Expected ( u64)expected == ( u64)csum_result, but ( u64)expected == 55939 (0xda83) ( u64)csum_result == 33754 (0x83da) not ok 4 test_ip_fast_csum # test_csum_ipv6_magic: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/checksum_kunit.c:617 Expected ( u64)expected_csum_ipv6_magic[i] == ( u64)csum_ipv6_magic(saddr, daddr, len, proto, csum), but ( u64)expected_csum_ipv6_magic[i] == 6356 (0x18d4) ( u64)csum_ipv6_magic(saddr, daddr, len, proto, csum) == 43586 (0xaa42) not ok 5 test_csum_ipv6_magic Reported to maintainer. - Handshake API tests fails with # req_destroy works: EXPECTATION FAILED at net/handshake/handshake-test.c:477 Expected handshake_req_destroy_test == req, but handshake_req_destroy_test == 00000000 req == c4aef640 not ok 11 req_destroy works This is not a new problem, likely seen since the test was introduced. Reported to maintainer. - regmap unit tests fail randomly in raw_noinc_write with errors such as # raw_noinc_write: ASSERTION FAILED at drivers/base/regmap/regmap-kunit.c:1243 Expected val_test == val, but val_test == 65581 (0x1002d) val == 45 (0x2d) not ok 8 maple-big # raw_noinc_write: pass:7 fail:1 skip:0 total:8 or # raw_noinc_write: ASSERTION FAILED at drivers/base/regmap/regmap-kunit.c:1243 Expected val_test == val, but val_test == 65556 (0x10014) val == 20 (0x14) not ok 5 rbtree-little ok 6 rbtree-big ok 7 maple-little ok 8 maple-big # raw_noinc_write: pass:7 fail:1 skip:0 total:8 This is a spurious problem, seen on both little and big endian machines. Newly discovered, not yet reported. Likely not a new problem. - cpumask unit tests on parisc/parisc64 fail with KTAP version 1 # Subtest: cpumask # module: cpumask_kunit 1..6 # test_cpumask_weight: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:68 Expected nr_cpu_ids == cpumask_weight(((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_possible_mask)), but nr_cpu_ids == 16 (0x10) cpumask_weight(((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_possible_mask)) == 1 (0x1) cpu_possible_mask contains CPUs 0 not ok 1 test_cpumask_weight # test_cpumask_first: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:79 Expected nr_cpu_ids <= cpumask_first_zero(((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_possible_mask)), but nr_cpu_ids == 16 (0x10) cpumask_first_zero(((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_possible_mask)) == 1 (0x1) cpu_possible_mask contains CPUs 0 not ok 2 test_cpumask_first # test_cpumask_last: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:87 Expected nr_cpu_ids - 1 == cpumask_last(((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_possible_mask)), but nr_cpu_ids - 1 == 15 (0xf) cpumask_last(((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_possible_mask)) == 0 (0x0) cpu_possible_mask contains CPUs 0 not ok 3 test_cpumask_last # test_cpumask_next: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/cpumask_kunit.c:94 Expected nr_cpu_ids <= cpumask_next_zero(-1, ((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_possible_mask)), but nr_cpu_ids == 16 (0x10) cpumask_next_zero(-1, ((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_possible_mask)) == 1 (0x1) cpu_possible_mask contains CPUs 0 not ok 4 test_cpumask_next ok 5 test_cpumask_iterators ok 6 test_cpumask_iterators_builtin # cpumask: pass:2 fail:4 skip:0 total:6 # Totals: pass:2 fail:4 skip:0 total:6 not ok 5 cpumask Probably not a new problem. Just discovered, not yet reported.