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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Luis,

On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:05:42 -0800 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 show 104a519fe1732b4e503ebc7b4ac71b6f0b8a0b62
> commit 104a519fe1732b4e503ebc7b4ac71b6f0b8a0b62
> Merge: 7c3b1edeee66 3f87493930a0
> Author: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Fri Feb 3 12:30:38 2017 +1100
> 
>     Merge remote-tracking branch 'spi/for-next'
> 
> I have checked Next/SHA1s and it shows:
> 
> mcgrof@piggy ~/linux-next (git::original)$ grep spi Next/SHA1s
> spi-nor        dc12bcccadafb5441170e6b7c8a438c91d4f385b
> spi        3f87493930a0f934549b04e100ecc2110e4f1efd
> hwspinlock    bd5717a4632cdecafe82d03de7dcb3b1876e2828
> 
> The commit 3f87493930a0f934549b04e100ecc2110e4f1efd then seems to be
> what I need to test. I have cloned Mark's spi tree and just tried to
> boot the for-next branch (on v4.10-rc1) on
> 3f87493930a0f934549b04e100ecc2110e4f1efd, and it boots successfully.
> This would lead me to believe this issue might be related to the merge
> conflict resolution done by Stephen, but wanted to check and ask.
> Perhaps there might be some specific tests I can run.

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 glance).

It is always possible that there is some semantic conflict that git
won't see and didn;t also involve a syntactic conflict or a build
failure.  e.g. the internal semantics of a function changes on one side
of the merge but a new usage expecting the old semantics is introduced
on the other side.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell