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

[Mike Rapoport]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 09:25:24AM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> On 01/03/2019 00:55, Dan Williams wrote:
> > 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..
> 
> bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx is not person, it's a send-only account for
> automated reports.  So no, it doesn't read emails.
> 
> I guess the tricky point here is that the authors of the commits
> found by bisections may not always have the hardware needed to
> reproduce the problem.  So it needs to be dealt with on a
> case-by-case basis: sometimes they do have the hardware,
> sometimes someone else on the list or on CC does, and sometimes
> it's better for the people who have access to the test lab which
> ran the KernelCI test to deal with it.
> 
> This case seems to fall into the last category.  As I have access
> to the Collabora lab, I can do some quick checks to confirm
> whether the proposed patch does fix the issue.  I hadn't realised
> that someone was waiting for this to happen, especially as the
> BeagleBone Black is a very common platform.  Sorry about that,
> I'll take a look today.
> 
> It may be a nice feature to be able to give access to the
> KernelCI test infrastructure to anyone who wants to debug an
> issue reported by KernelCI or verify a fix, so they won't need to
> have the hardware locally.  Something to think about for the
> future.

Another thing to consider is adding "earlyprintk debug" to the kernel
command line for the boot tests.
 
> >> Is it possible to determine whether this regression is still present in
> >> current linux-next?
> 
> I'll try to re-apply the patch that caused the issue, then see if
> the suggested change fixes it.  As far as the current linux-next
> master branch is concerned, KernelCI boot tests are passing fine
> on that platform.
> 
> Guillaume
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.