Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 12:36:23AM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 15:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > > > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > > > 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/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.124-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-4.14.y > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > -rc2 is out, to hopefully resolve the btrfs 32bit build failure: > > > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.124-rc2.gz > > Results from Linaro’s test farm. > No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386. > > NOTE: > selftest sources version updated to 5.1 > Following test cases reported pass after upgrade > kselftest: > * bpf_test_libbpf.sh > * net_ip_defrag.sh > Few kselftest test cases reported failure and we are investigating. > > LTP version upgrade to 20190517 Great, thanks for testing! greg k-h
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 15:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > > 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/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.124-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-4.14.y > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > -rc2 is out, to hopefully resolve the btrfs 32bit build failure: > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.124-rc2.gz Results from Linaro’s test farm. No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386. NOTE: selftest sources version updated to 5.1 Following test cases reported pass after upgrade kselftest: * bpf_test_libbpf.sh * net_ip_defrag.sh Few kselftest test cases reported failure and we are investigating. LTP version upgrade to 20190517 Summary kernel: 4.14.124-rc2 git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git git branch: linux-4.14.y git commit: 396e28a10fffc503c28b113c1e867b8e3684a98a git describe: v4.14.123-70-g396e28a10fff Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.14-oe/build/v4.14.123-70-g396e28a10fff No regressions (compared to build v4.14.123) Fixes (compared to build v4.14.123) kselftest: * bpf_test_libbpf.sh * net_ip_defrag.sh Ran 22140 total tests in the following environments and test suites. Environments -- - dragonboard-410c - arm64 - hi6220-hikey - arm64 - i386 - juno-r2 - arm64 - qemu_arm - qemu_arm64 - qemu_i386 - qemu_x86_64 - x15 - arm - x86_64 Test Suites --- * build * install-android-platform-tools-r2600 * kselftest * libhugetlbfs * ltp-cap_bounds-tests * ltp-commands-tests * ltp-containers-tests * ltp-cpuhotplug-tests * ltp-cve-tests * ltp-dio-tests * ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests * ltp-filecaps-tests * ltp-fs-tests * ltp-fs_bind-tests * ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests * ltp-fsx-tests * ltp-hugetlb-tests * ltp-io-tests * ltp-ipc-tests * ltp-math-tests * ltp-mm-tests * ltp-nptl-tests * ltp-pty-tests * ltp-sched-tests * ltp-securebits-tests * ltp-syscalls-tests * ltp-timers-tests * perf * spectre-meltdown-checker-test * network-basic-tests * v4l2-compliance * ltp-open-posix-tests * kvm-unit-tests * kselftest-vsyscall-mode-native * kselftest-vsyscall-mode-none -- Linaro LKFT https://lkft.linaro.org
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On 6/7/19 8:38 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. Anything received after that time might be too late. Build results: total: 172 pass: 172 fail: 0 Qemu test results: total: 333 pass: 333 fail: 0 Guenter
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > 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/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.124-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-4.14.y > and the diffstat can be found below. -rc2 is out, to hopefully resolve the btrfs 32bit build failure: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.124-rc2.gz thanks, greg k-h
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:35:09PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 09:27 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:16:27PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:11:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > > > > > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'btrfs_add_link': > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6590:27: error: invalid initializer > > > > struct timespec64 now = current_time(&parent_inode->vfs_inode); > > > > ^~~~ > > For 4.14 the type of "now" should be struct timespec. > > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6592:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to > > > > type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > > > > parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_mtime = now; > > > > ^ > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6593:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to > > > > type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > > > > parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_ctime = now; > > > > ^ > > > > > > What arch? This builds for me here. odd... > > > > > > > arm, i386, m68k, mips, parisc, xtensa, ppc, sh4 > > > > It was originally seen with v4.14.123-69-gcc46c1204f89 last night, > > but I confirmed that v4.14.123-70-g94c5316fb246 is still affected. > > All 32-bit architectures are affected; on 64-bit architectures > timespec64 is a macro expanding to timespec. Thanks, I've made this fix now. Will go push out a -rc2 with it in it. greg k-h
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 21:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > 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/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.124-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-4.14.y > and the diffstat can be found below. > > thanks, > > greg k-h compile kernel module failed for arm and i386. > Filipe Manana > Btrfs: incremental send, fix file corruption when no-holes feature is > enabled > > Filipe Manana > Btrfs: fix fsync not persisting changed attributes of a directory > > Filipe Manana > Btrfs: fix race updating log root item during fsync > > Filipe Manana > Btrfs: fix wrong ctime and mtime of a directory after log replay fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'btrfs_add_link': fs/btrfs/inode.c:6590:27: error: invalid initializer struct timespec64 now = current_time(&parent_inode->vfs_inode); ^~~~ fs/btrfs/inode.c:6592:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_mtime = now; ^ fs/btrfs/inode.c:6593:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_ctime = now; ^ Full build log link, https://ci.linaro.org/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-stable-rc-4.14/487/DISTRO=lkft,MACHINE=intel-core2-32,label=docker-lkft/consoleText -- Linaro LKFT https://lkft.linaro.org
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
stable-rc/linux-4.14.y boot: 118 boots: 0 failed, 108 passed with 10 offline (v4.14.123-69-gcc46c1204f89) Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.14.y/kernel/v4.14.123-69-gcc46c1204f89/ Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.14.y/kernel/v4.14.123-69-gcc46c1204f89/ Tree: stable-rc Branch: linux-4.14.y Git Describe: v4.14.123-69-gcc46c1204f89 Git Commit: cc46c1204f89505a33f1fb42e719ae0c8586cb68 Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git Tested: 63 unique boards, 23 SoC families, 14 builds out of 201 Offline Platforms: arm: bcm2835_defconfig: gcc-8 bcm2835-rpi-b: 1 offline lab sama5_defconfig: gcc-8 at91-sama5d4_xplained: 1 offline lab multi_v7_defconfig: gcc-8 alpine-db: 1 offline lab at91-sama5d4_xplained: 1 offline lab socfpga_cyclone5_de0_sockit: 1 offline lab sun5i-r8-chip: 1 offline lab sunxi_defconfig: gcc-8 sun5i-r8-chip: 1 offline lab arm64: defconfig: gcc-8 apq8016-sbc: 1 offline lab juno-r2: 1 offline lab mt7622-rfb1: 1 offline lab --- For more info write to
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:32:03PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:27:22AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:16:27PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:11:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > > > > > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'btrfs_add_link': > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6590:27: error: invalid initializer > > > >struct timespec64 now = current_time(&parent_inode->vfs_inode); > > > >^~~~ > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6592:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to > > > > type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > > > >parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_mtime = now; > > > >^ > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6593:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to > > > > type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > > > >parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_ctime = now; > > > >^ > > > > > > What arch? This builds for me here. odd... > > > > > > > arm, i386, m68k, mips, parisc, xtensa, ppc, sh4 > > > > It was originally seen with v4.14.123-69-gcc46c1204f89 last night, > > but I confirmed that v4.14.123-70-g94c5316fb246 is still affected. > > Ok, let me dig into this after dinner, I think it's due to the > timespec64 change that happened before 4.19 (where this error is not > showing up...) > Quite likely. Note that more architectures may be affected - I don't build btrfs for each architecture, only for architectures where allmodconfig is error-free and for architectures supported by qemu. Guenter
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 09:27 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:16:27PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:11:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > > > > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'btrfs_add_link': > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6590:27: error: invalid initializer > > > struct timespec64 now = current_time(&parent_inode->vfs_inode); > > > ^~~~ For 4.14 the type of "now" should be struct timespec. > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6592:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to > > > type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > > > parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_mtime = now; > > > ^ > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6593:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to > > > type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > > > parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_ctime = now; > > > ^ > > > > What arch? This builds for me here. odd... > > > > arm, i386, m68k, mips, parisc, xtensa, ppc, sh4 > > It was originally seen with v4.14.123-69-gcc46c1204f89 last night, > but I confirmed that v4.14.123-70-g94c5316fb246 is still affected. All 32-bit architectures are affected; on 64-bit architectures timespec64 is a macro expanding to timespec. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Software Developer Codethink Ltd https://www.codethink.co.uk/ Dale House, 35 Dale Street Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:27:22AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:16:27PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:11:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > > > > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'btrfs_add_link': > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6590:27: error: invalid initializer > > >struct timespec64 now = current_time(&parent_inode->vfs_inode); > > >^~~~ > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6592:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to > > > type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > > >parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_mtime = now; > > >^ > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6593:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to > > > type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > > >parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_ctime = now; > > >^ > > > > What arch? This builds for me here. odd... > > > > arm, i386, m68k, mips, parisc, xtensa, ppc, sh4 > > It was originally seen with v4.14.123-69-gcc46c1204f89 last night, > but I confirmed that v4.14.123-70-g94c5316fb246 is still affected. Ok, let me dig into this after dinner, I think it's due to the timespec64 change that happened before 4.19 (where this error is not showing up...) thanks, greg k-h
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:16:27PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:11:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > > > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'btrfs_add_link': > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6590:27: error: invalid initializer > >struct timespec64 now = current_time(&parent_inode->vfs_inode); > >^~~~ > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6592:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to type > > 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > >parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_mtime = now; > >^ > > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6593:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to type > > 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' > >parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_ctime = now; > >^ > > What arch? This builds for me here. odd... > arm, i386, m68k, mips, parisc, xtensa, ppc, sh4 It was originally seen with v4.14.123-69-gcc46c1204f89 last night, but I confirmed that v4.14.123-70-g94c5316fb246 is still affected. Guenter
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:11:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'btrfs_add_link': > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6590:27: error: invalid initializer >struct timespec64 now = current_time(&parent_inode->vfs_inode); >^~~~ > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6592:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to type > 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' >parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_mtime = now; >^ > fs/btrfs/inode.c:6593:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to type > 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' >parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_ctime = now; >^ What arch? This builds for me here. odd... greg k-h
Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/69] 4.14.124-stable review
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 05:38:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.124 release. > There are 69 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 Sun 09 Jun 2019 03:37:08 PM UTC. > Anything received after that time might be too late. > fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'btrfs_add_link': fs/btrfs/inode.c:6590:27: error: invalid initializer struct timespec64 now = current_time(&parent_inode->vfs_inode); ^~~~ fs/btrfs/inode.c:6592:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_mtime = now; ^ fs/btrfs/inode.c:6593:35: error: incompatible types when assigning to type 'struct timespec' from type 'struct timespec64' parent_inode->vfs_inode.i_ctime = now; ^ Guenter
