Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1408603 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-29 18:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-05-29 21:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [Revert "ppdev] 1701f68040: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 4. 00000000 (serial) vs. 00000080 (goldfish_pdev_bus) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-05-29 18:30 +0200
Re: [Revert "ppdev] 1701f68040: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 4. 00000000 (serial) vs. 00000080 (goldfish_pdev_bus) Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com> - 2016-05-29 21:30 +0200
| From | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 18:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Revert "ppdev] 1701f68040: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 4. 00000000 (serial) vs. 00000080 (goldfish_pdev_bus) |
| Message-ID | <rEbLc-9Z-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 8:28 AM, kernel test robot
<fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
This bisection seems unlikely.
I *think* what is going on is that the previous kernels ended up with
boot failures:
> +------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+-------------+
> | | 3b3b3bd977 | 1701f68040 | v4.6_052910 |
> +------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+-------------+
> | kernel_BUG_at_drivers/base/driver.c | 92 | | |
and then when that went away (thanks to the commit you bisected to),
the "genirq: Flags mismatch" warning showed up because it now got past
that original bug.
I'm not sure what the fix to the 0day bisection should be. Maybe add
some test that the last "good" kernel actually booted?
Linus
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rEezn-1XV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1408603 |
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 09:25:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 8:28 AM, kernel test robot > <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote: > > > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is > > This bisection seems unlikely. > > I *think* what is going on is that the previous kernels ended up with > boot failures: > > > +------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+-------------+ > > | | 3b3b3bd977 | 1701f68040 | v4.6_052910 | > > +------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+-------------+ > > | kernel_BUG_at_drivers/base/driver.c | 92 | | | > > and then when that went away (thanks to the commit you bisected to), > the "genirq: Flags mismatch" warning showed up because it now got past > that original bug. That's right. It's a bug fix that discloses a less serious warning. > I'm not sure what the fix to the 0day bisection should be. Maybe add > some test that the last "good" kernel actually booted? Yes, we do have tests on whether the parent boots fine or has more serious boot errors, however they are wrongly bypassed when we recently try to add a new test to report out errors which look relevant to the code change. I'll fix it up, sorry for the noise! Boot tests are pretty noisy and often a commit and its parent commit both have error/warnings. A better long term solution would be to compare their time stamps to get the clue whether it's a bug fix that makes the kernel live longer to produce another warning. Thanks, Fengguang
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web