Re: [PATCH v4] Makefile.compiler: replace cc-ifversion with compiler-specific macros

[Ricardo Cañuelo]

On jue, may 18 2023 at 14:12:30, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's a higher risk change (and has my name on the tested-by tag, yikes).
>
> So is that the culprit of the boot failure you're observing?

Right now it is.

Here's a test run using that commit
(5750121ae7382ebac8d47ce6d68012d6cd1d7926):
https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10373216

Here's one with the commit right after that one
(26ef40de5cbb24728a34a319e8d42cdec99f186c):
https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10371513

Then one with 26ef40de5cbb24728a34a319e8d42cdec99f186c with a revert
commit for 5750121ae7382ebac8d47ce6d68012d6cd1d7926 on top:
https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10371882

But I'm not confident enough to jump ahead and call this a kernel
regression, specially after the bisector confidently said that about
your commit and then it turned out none of us could reproduce it.

There have been some cases where a commit made a test fail (kernel
failing to load, for instance) and the real problem was that the kernel
got bigger than the target was capable of handling. So not a problem
with the commit at all, it was just that the memory mappings needed to
be redefined for that target. What I'm saying is that sometimes a
regression report is really uncovering a problem in the test setup
rather than introducing a bug. Maybe this is one of those cases.

Cheers,
Ricardo