Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1391894 > unrolled thread

Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5

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.

Contents

  Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> - 2016-05-01 23:30 +0200
    Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5 Crestez Dan Leonard <cdleonard@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 21:00 +0200
      Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> - 2016-05-04 09:50 +0200
        Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-05-04 19:30 +0200
          Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk> - 2016-05-04 20:20 +0200
            Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> - 2016-05-05 21:50 +0200

#1391894 — Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5

On 27/04/16 16:56, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:07:55 -0500
> Michael Welling <mwelling@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:51PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>>
>>> This now causes us to crash and burn on the ASUS T100TA Baytrail/T
>>> platforms
>>>  
>>
>> I believe this regression has already been patched.
>>
>> Check the latest commits in linux-next.
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_i2c.c
>>
>> See if the latest patches fix your issue.
> 
> It does - as this is a regression can we please get those fixes into the
> next -rc ?
> 
I'm afraid I'm lost in this one - which patch caused the regression and
which one fixed it?  The only patches I can immediately see in next
both introduce and then squish a similar bug, but neither of them
has hit Linus' tree yet.

Or are we dealing with what was fixed in:
c816d9e7 iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
I had understood that one as more hypothetical than real...

Unfortunately I'm travelling and I suspect that means this will only get
in just after the release (so for 4.6.1) once I've confirmed which fixes
we actually need to backport.

Jonathan

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1393745

On 05/01/2016 10:58 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 27/04/16 16:56, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:07:55 -0500
>> Michael Welling <mwelling@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:51PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This now causes us to crash and burn on the ASUS T100TA Baytrail/T
>>>> platforms
>>>>  
>>>
>>> I believe this regression has already been patched.
>>>
>>> Check the latest commits in linux-next.
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_i2c.c
>>>
>>> See if the latest patches fix your issue.
>>
>> It does - as this is a regression can we please get those fixes into the
>> next -rc ?
>>
> I'm afraid I'm lost in this one - which patch caused the regression and
> which one fixed it?  The only patches I can immediately see in next
> both introduce and then squish a similar bug, but neither of them
> has hit Linus' tree yet.
> 
> Or are we dealing with what was fixed in:
> c816d9e7 iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
> I had understood that one as more hypothetical than real...
> 
> Unfortunately I'm travelling and I suspect that means this will only get
> in just after the release (so for 4.6.1) once I've confirmed which fixes
> we actually need to backport.
> 
Commit
    c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
Fixes:
    33da559f: iio: imu: mpu6050: add mpu6500 register settings

As far as I can tell this crash will always happen when the device is
probed via ACPI.

-- 
Regards,
Leonard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1394064

On 03/05/16 19:54, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
> On 05/01/2016 10:58 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 27/04/16 16:56, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:07:55 -0500
>>> Michael Welling <mwelling@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:51PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This now causes us to crash and burn on the ASUS T100TA Baytrail/T
>>>>> platforms
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> I believe this regression has already been patched.
>>>>
>>>> Check the latest commits in linux-next.
>>>>
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_i2c.c
>>>>
>>>> See if the latest patches fix your issue.
>>>
>>> It does - as this is a regression can we please get those fixes into the
>>> next -rc ?
>>>
>> I'm afraid I'm lost in this one - which patch caused the regression and
>> which one fixed it?  The only patches I can immediately see in next
>> both introduce and then squish a similar bug, but neither of them
>> has hit Linus' tree yet.
>>
>> Or are we dealing with what was fixed in:
>> c816d9e7 iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
>> I had understood that one as more hypothetical than real...
>>
>> Unfortunately I'm travelling and I suspect that means this will only get
>> in just after the release (so for 4.6.1) once I've confirmed which fixes
>> we actually need to backport.
>>
> Commit
>     c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
> Fixes:
>     33da559f: iio: imu: mpu6050: add mpu6500 register settings
> 
> As far as I can tell this crash will always happen when the device is
> probed via ACPI.

Hi Greg,

A quick heads up.

Unfortunately this regression has come up whilst I'm travelling and
don't have appropriate signing keys with me to do a pull request.
Should be able to do one tomorrow evening as I'll back home.

Turns out the 'possible' is quite common and causing a mess.
Even better the fix actually has a fix as well... 

Fastest option is probably a cherry pick of:

c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
718ba46e: iio: imu: mpu6050: Fix name/chip_id when using ACPI

I'll send you a pull request of my 
togreg-in-a-hurry branch tomorrow.

Sorry for these being so late in the cycle.

Anyhow, run for train time. 

Thanks

Jonathan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1394571

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 03/05/16 19:54, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
> > On 05/01/2016 10:58 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >> On 27/04/16 16:56, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:07:55 -0500
> >>> Michael Welling <mwelling@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:51PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This now causes us to crash and burn on the ASUS T100TA Baytrail/T
> >>>>> platforms
> >>>>>  
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe this regression has already been patched.
> >>>>
> >>>> Check the latest commits in linux-next.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_i2c.c
> >>>>
> >>>> See if the latest patches fix your issue.
> >>>
> >>> It does - as this is a regression can we please get those fixes into the
> >>> next -rc ?
> >>>
> >> I'm afraid I'm lost in this one - which patch caused the regression and
> >> which one fixed it?  The only patches I can immediately see in next
> >> both introduce and then squish a similar bug, but neither of them
> >> has hit Linus' tree yet.
> >>
> >> Or are we dealing with what was fixed in:
> >> c816d9e7 iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
> >> I had understood that one as more hypothetical than real...
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I'm travelling and I suspect that means this will only get
> >> in just after the release (so for 4.6.1) once I've confirmed which fixes
> >> we actually need to backport.
> >>
> > Commit
> >     c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
> > Fixes:
> >     33da559f: iio: imu: mpu6050: add mpu6500 register settings
> > 
> > As far as I can tell this crash will always happen when the device is
> > probed via ACPI.
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> A quick heads up.
> 
> Unfortunately this regression has come up whilst I'm travelling and
> don't have appropriate signing keys with me to do a pull request.
> Should be able to do one tomorrow evening as I'll back home.
> 
> Turns out the 'possible' is quite common and causing a mess.
> Even better the fix actually has a fix as well... 
> 
> Fastest option is probably a cherry pick of:
> 
> c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
> 718ba46e: iio: imu: mpu6050: Fix name/chip_id when using ACPI

From where?

> 
> I'll send you a pull request of my 
> togreg-in-a-hurry branch tomorrow.
> 
> Sorry for these being so late in the cycle.
> 
> Anyhow, run for train time. 

You can always just send me patches, no need for it to always be a pull
request if you can't do that for some reason.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1394600

On 4 May 2016 18:24:43 BST, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 03/05/16 19:54, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
>> > On 05/01/2016 10:58 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> >> On 27/04/16 16:56, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:07:55 -0500
>> >>> Michael Welling <mwelling@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:51PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes
>wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This now causes us to crash and burn on the ASUS T100TA
>Baytrail/T
>> >>>>> platforms
>> >>>>>  
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I believe this regression has already been patched.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Check the latest commits in linux-next.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_i2c.c
>> >>>>
>> >>>> See if the latest patches fix your issue.
>> >>>
>> >>> It does - as this is a regression can we please get those fixes
>into the
>> >>> next -rc ?
>> >>>
>> >> I'm afraid I'm lost in this one - which patch caused the
>regression and
>> >> which one fixed it?  The only patches I can immediately see in
>next
>> >> both introduce and then squish a similar bug, but neither of them
>> >> has hit Linus' tree yet.
>> >>
>> >> Or are we dealing with what was fixed in:
>> >> c816d9e7 iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
>> >> I had understood that one as more hypothetical than real...
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately I'm travelling and I suspect that means this will
>only get
>> >> in just after the release (so for 4.6.1) once I've confirmed which
>fixes
>> >> we actually need to backport.
>> >>
>> > Commit
>> >     c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
>> > Fixes:
>> >     33da559f: iio: imu: mpu6050: add mpu6500 register settings
>> > 
>> > As far as I can tell this crash will always happen when the device
>is
>> > probed via ACPI.
>> 
>> Hi Greg,
>> 
>> A quick heads up.
>> 
>> Unfortunately this regression has come up whilst I'm travelling and
>> don't have appropriate signing keys with me to do a pull request.
>> Should be able to do one tomorrow evening as I'll back home.
>> 
>> Turns out the 'possible' is quite common and causing a mess.
>> Even better the fix actually has a fix as well... 
>> 
>> Fastest option is probably a cherry pick of:
>> 
>> c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
>> 718ba46e: iio: imu: mpu6050: Fix name/chip_id when using ACPI
>
>From where?
Doh.

Both already in your staging-next. Confusion was over the seriousness of the issue so went via wrong route.

>
>> 
>> I'll send you a pull request of my 
>> togreg-in-a-hurry branch tomorrow.
>> 
>> Sorry for these being so late in the cycle.
>> 
>> Anyhow, run for train time. 
>
>You can always just send me patches, no need for it to always be a pull
>request if you can't do that for some reason.

Good point, nothing like limited time to make one an idiot sometimes!

Jonathan
>
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1395329

On 04/05/16 19:15, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4 May 2016 18:24:43 BST, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On 03/05/16 19:54, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
>>>> On 05/01/2016 10:58 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>>> On 27/04/16 16:56, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:07:55 -0500
>>>>>> Michael Welling <mwelling@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:51PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This now causes us to crash and burn on the ASUS T100TA
>> Baytrail/T
>>>>>>>> platforms
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe this regression has already been patched.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Check the latest commits in linux-next.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_i2c.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See if the latest patches fix your issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does - as this is a regression can we please get those fixes
>> into the
>>>>>> next -rc ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I'm lost in this one - which patch caused the
>> regression and
>>>>> which one fixed it?  The only patches I can immediately see in
>> next
>>>>> both introduce and then squish a similar bug, but neither of them
>>>>> has hit Linus' tree yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or are we dealing with what was fixed in:
>>>>> c816d9e7 iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
>>>>> I had understood that one as more hypothetical than real...
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately I'm travelling and I suspect that means this will
>> only get
>>>>> in just after the release (so for 4.6.1) once I've confirmed which
>> fixes
>>>>> we actually need to backport.
>>>>>
>>>> Commit
>>>>     c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
>>>> Fixes:
>>>>     33da559f: iio: imu: mpu6050: add mpu6500 register settings
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell this crash will always happen when the device
>> is
>>>> probed via ACPI.
>>>
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>> A quick heads up.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this regression has come up whilst I'm travelling and
>>> don't have appropriate signing keys with me to do a pull request.
>>> Should be able to do one tomorrow evening as I'll back home.
>>>
>>> Turns out the 'possible' is quite common and causing a mess.
>>> Even better the fix actually has a fix as well... 
>>>
>>> Fastest option is probably a cherry pick of:
>>>
>>> c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
>>> 718ba46e: iio: imu: mpu6050: Fix name/chip_id when using ACPI
>>
>>From where?
> Doh.
> 
> Both already in your staging-next. Confusion was over
> the seriousness of the issue so went via wrong route.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> I'll send you a pull request of my 
>>> togreg-in-a-hurry branch tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Sorry for these being so late in the cycle.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, run for train time. 
>>
>> You can always just send me patches, no need for it to always be a pull
>> request if you can't do that for some reason.
> 
> Good point, nothing like limited time to make one an idiot sometimes!
> 
> Jonathan
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
> 
I've just sent a pull request in case if you want to grab it that way.

For reference the crash report is:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-iio/msg24431.html

Thanks,

Jonathan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web