Re: next/master boot bisection: next-20190215 on beaglebone-black

[Dan Williams]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:04:04 -0800 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:00 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 18:51:51 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:43:25AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:20:10 -0800 (PST) "kernelci.org bot" <bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >   Details:    https://kernelci.org/boot/id/5c666ea959b514b017fe6017
> > > > > >   Plain log:  https://storage.kernelci.org//next/master/next-20190215/arm/multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_SMP=n/gcc-7/lab-collabora/boot-am335x-boneblack.txt
> > > > > >   HTML log:   https://storage.kernelci.org//next/master/next-20190215/arm/multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_SMP=n/gcc-7/lab-collabora/boot-am335x-boneblack.html
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > > But what actually went wrong?  Kernel doesn't boot?
> > > >
> > > > The linked logs show the kernel dying early in boot before the console
> > > > comes up so yeah.  There should be kernel output at the bottom of the
> > > > logs.
> > >
> > > I assume Dan is distracted - I'll keep this patchset on hold until we
> > > can get to the bottom of this.
> >
> > Michal had asked if the free space accounting fix up addressed this
> > boot regression? I was awaiting word on that.
>
> hm, does bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx actually read emails?  Let's try info@ as well..

Thanks, yes. The logs don't give much to go on, so I can only iterate
on this as fast as I can drum up feedback.

>
> Is it possible to determine whether this regression is still present in
> current linux-next?
>
> > I assume you're not willing to entertain a "depends
> > NOT_THIS_ARM_BOARD" hack in the meantime?
>
> We'd probably never be able to remove it.  And we don't know whether
> other systems might be affected.

Right, and agree. I was just grasping at straws because I know of
users that want to take advantage of this and was lamenting the
upcoming apology tour saying, "sorry, maybe v5.2". I had always
expected that platforms outside of x86-servers would need to do their
own validation / evaluation before recommending this, and the
regression concern is why it defaulted to disabled... but boot
regressions are boot regressions.