On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:09:38AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 02:53:13PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 07:20:46AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:50:24AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > On 2/13/23 06:49, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.168 release.
> > > > There are 139 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 Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:46:51 +0000.
> > > > 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/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.168-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-5.10.y
> > > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > >
> > > There is a regression coming from:
> > >
> > > nvmem: core: fix registration vs use race
> > >
> > > which causes the following to happen for MTD devices:
> > >
> > > [ 6.031640] kobject_add_internal failed for mtd0 with -EEXIST, don't try
> > > to register things with the same name in the same directory.
> > > [ 7.846965] spi-nor: probe of spi0.0 failed with error -17
> > >
> > > attached is a full log with the call trace. This does not happen with
> > > v6.2-rc8 where the MTD partitions are successfully registered.
> >
> > Can you use `git bisect` to find the offending commit?
>
> The reason for this is because, due to how my patch series was
> backported, you have ended up with nvmem_register() initialising
> its embedded device, and then calling device_add() on it _twice_.
>
> Basically, the backport of:
>
> "nvmem: core: fix registration vs use race"
>
> is broken, because the original patch _moved_ the device_add() and
> that has not been carried forward to whatever got applied to stable
> trees.
>
> It looks like the 5.15-stable version of this patch was correct.
>
> Maybe whoever tried to fixup the failure needs to try again?
I've dropped the backport series from both 5.15 and 5.10.
So you've dropped what looks to be a perfectly good backport in 5.15,
and all of the 5.10 despite it just being the last patch which is the
problem. Sounds like a total over-reaction to me.