Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review

[Naresh Kamboju]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 13:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:35:46PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > + linux-nfs and more
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.48 release.
> > > There are 15 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 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:14:28 +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/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.48-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-6.1.y
> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> >
> > Following test regression found on stable-rc 6.1.
> > Rpi4 is using NFS mount rootfs and running LTP syscalls testing.
> > chown02 tests creating testfile2 on NFS mounted and validating
> > the functionality and found that it was a failure.
> >
> > This is already been reported by others on lore and fix patch merged
> > into stable-rc linux-6.4.y [1] and [2].
> >
> > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Odd, it's not a regression in this -rc cycle, so it was missed in the
> previous ones somehow?

I have re-tested with newers and older versions of the kernel and here
I confirm that this is not a regression from this round of stable rc review.

We have made a couple of changes to our infrastructure and are investigating
the root cause of these two test cases failures.

- Naresh