* �ں�ö/���ӿ�����/SW Platform(��)AOT��([email protected])
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't want to pretend I'm perfect. Of course, I can make mistakes.
> I'm just saying that *I have not seen* any crash by cross-release.
>
> In that case you pointed out, likewise, the crash was caused by ae813308f:
> lockdep: Avoid creating redundant links, which is not related to the feature
> actually. It was also falsely accused at the time again...
>
> Of course, it's my fault not to have made the design more robust so that
> others can modify lockdep code caring less after cross-release commit.
> That's what I'm sorry for.
>
> I already mentioned the above in the thread talking about the issue you
> are pointing now. Of course, I basically appreciate all comments and
> suggestions you have given, but you seem to have mis-understood some
> issues wrt cross-release feature.
Two different cross-release commits got bisected to with kernel crashes:
Sep 30 kernel test rob | ce07a9415f ("locking/lockdep: Make
check_prev_add() able to .."): BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
dereference at 00000020
Oct 03 Fengguang Wu | [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel
NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2
The first crash was bisected to:
ce07a9415f26: locking/lockdep: Make check_prev_add() able to handle external
stack_trace
The second crash was bisected to:
b09be676e0ff: locking/lockdep: Implement the 'crossrelease' feature
... and unless your argument that both bisections were bad, it doesn't matter
where the root cause ended up being, fact is that it was not a problem free
series
and let's not pretend it was.
Note that to me it *really* does not matter that a commit causes a crash: bugs
happen, they are part of software development done by humans - so as long as
it's
not a pattern of underlying carelessness or some development process error it's
not something to get emotional about.
Ok?
Thanks,
Ingo
