Re: Regression on next-20170203 spi/for-next 3f87493930a0f qemu on x86_64

2017-02-06 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 06:47:43PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Do we have any test units which can kick off regularly to test against > such type of regression in the future or is it not worth it? Yap, it is called: build new kernel and boot it the box :-) I always try to build and boot all

Re: Regression on next-20170203 spi/for-next 3f87493930a0f qemu on x86_64

2017-02-06 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 11:33:25AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 05:22:55PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Upstream (v4.10-rc6-193-ga572a1b99948), the same command yields no error at > > all: > > That's because you tested Linus' merge commit of the branch which fixed th

Re: Regression on next-20170203 spi/for-next 3f87493930a0f qemu on x86_64

2017-02-05 Thread Guenter Roeck
On 02/05/2017 02:33 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 05:22:55PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: Upstream (v4.10-rc6-193-ga572a1b99948), the same command yields no error at all: That's because you tested Linus' merge commit of the branch which fixed that :-) FWIW, I also tested

Re: Regression on next-20170203 spi/for-next 3f87493930a0f qemu on x86_64

2017-02-05 Thread Mark Brown
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 10:17:29AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > OK, it is possible that the merge is actually incorrect. I did *not* > do any manual resolution of that merge and git only reported an > automatic resolution in file drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c (which looks ok > from a quick glanc

Re: Regression on next-20170203 spi/for-next 3f87493930a0f qemu on x86_64

2017-02-05 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 05:22:55PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Upstream (v4.10-rc6-193-ga572a1b99948), the same command yields no error at > all: That's because you tested Linus' merge commit of the branch which fixed that :-) IOW, the fix should be: aaaec6fc7554 ("x86/irq: Make irq activate

Re: Regression on next-20170203 spi/for-next 3f87493930a0f qemu on x86_64

2017-02-04 Thread Guenter Roeck
On 02/04/2017 12:05 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: I could not boot next-20170203 on my x86_64 qemu instance. It stalls at: [0.015549] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 [0.015842] mce: CPU supports 10 MCE banks [0.016032] Last level iTLB entries: 4KB 0, 2MB 0, 4MB 0 [0.016393] Last lev

Re: Regression on next-20170203 spi/for-next 3f87493930a0f qemu on x86_64

2017-02-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:17:29 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:05:42 -0800 "Luis R. Rodriguez" > wrote: > > > > though so it seems something with my configuration and boot. I > > bisected next-20170203 between its latest commit and v4.10-rc6 and > > ended up with t

Re: Regression on next-20170203 spi/for-next 3f87493930a0f qemu on x86_64

2017-02-04 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Luis, On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:05:42 -0800 "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote: > > though so it seems something with my configuration and boot. I > bisected next-20170203 between its latest commit and v4.10-rc6 and > ended up with this bad commit: > > 104a519fe1732b4e503ebc7b4ac71b6f0b8a0b62 > > $ git s

Regression on next-20170203 spi/for-next 3f87493930a0f qemu on x86_64

2017-02-04 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
I could not boot next-20170203 on my x86_64 qemu instance. It stalls at: [0.015549] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 [0.015842] mce: CPU supports 10 MCE banks [0.016032] Last level iTLB entries: 4KB 0, 2MB 0, 4MB 0 [0.016393] Last level dTLB entries: 4KB 0, 2MB 0, 4MB 0, 1GB 0 [0.