Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 17

[Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:38:47AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've uploaded today's linux-next tree to the master branch of the
> repository below:
> 
>         git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/linux-next.git > 
> A next-20131017 tag is also provided for convenience.
> 
> One new conflict today but otherwise uneventful.  x86_64 allmodconfigs
> build after each merge but no other build tests were done.

Hi,

I'm seeing a fairly large fallout on boot testing. See
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/kernel-build-reports/2013-October/000719.html
for full list (I need to start providing longer backlogs for failures, the top
of the oopses is lost in the email).

For example, on dove (SolidRun Cubox) I see:

[    0.707248] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000054
[    0.715297] pgd = c0004000
[    0.717984] [00000054] *pgd=00000000
[    0.721548] Internal error: Oops: 5 [#1] ARM
[    0.725794] Modules linked in:
[    0.728841] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted 3.12.0-rc5-next-20131017 #1
[    0.736114] task: ef035c00 ti: ef036000 task.ti: ef036000
[    0.741497] PC is at kfree+0x54/0xc4
[    0.745063] LR is at ata_host_register+0x3c/0x290
[    0.749741] pc : [<c008ad28>]    lr : [<c023e168>]    psr: 40000193
[    0.749741] sp : ef037da8  ip : 00000034  fp : 00000000
[    0.761159] r10: 00000000  r9 : ef061810  r8 : c0519fc8
[    0.766353] r7 : c0519fc8  r6 : a0000113  r5 : ffffffff  r4 : ef1c9dd0
[    0.772850] r3 : c0fc8fe0  r2 : c07c9000  r1 : 40000000  r0 : 00000000
[    0.779349] Flags: nZcv  IRQs off  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  ISA ARM  Segment kernel
[    0.786708] Control: 10c5387d  Table: 00004019  DAC: 00000015
[    0.792428] Process swapper (pid: 1, stack limit = 0xef036248)
[    0.798234] Stack: (0xef037da8 to 0xef038000)
[    0.957218] [<c008ad28>] (kfree+0x54/0xc4) from [<c023e168>] (ata_host_register+0x3c/0x290)
[    0.965542] [<c023e168>] (ata_host_register+0x3c/0x290) from [<c023e498>] (ata_host_activate+0xdc/0x118)
[    0.974992] [<c023e498>] (ata_host_activate+0xdc/0x118) from [<c0251130>] (mv_platform_probe+0x2dc/0x36c)
[    0.984527] [<c0251130>] (mv_platform_probe+0x2dc/0x36c) from [<c021b6c4>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x48)
[    0.994051] [<c021b6c4>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x48) from [<c0219e88>] (really_probe+0x74/0x1fc)
[    1.003062] [<c0219e88>] (really_probe+0x74/0x1fc) from [<c021a0fc>] (__driver_attach+0x98/0x9c)
[    1.011804] [<c021a0fc>] (__driver_attach+0x98/0x9c) from [<c02186cc>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x60/0x94)
[    1.020808] [<c02186cc>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x60/0x94) from [<c0219728>] (bus_add_driver+0x148/0x1f0)
[    1.029898] [<c0219728>] (bus_add_driver+0x148/0x1f0) from [<c021a700>] (driver_register+0x78/0xf8)
[    1.038911] [<c021a700>] (driver_register+0x78/0xf8) from [<c04e2ed0>] (mv_init+0x30/0x50)
[    1.047144] [<c04e2ed0>] (mv_init+0x30/0x50) from [<c000877c>] (do_one_initcall+0x100/0x14c)
[    1.055557] [<c000877c>] (do_one_initcall+0x100/0x14c) from [<c04cead4>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x120/0x1c0)
[    1.065259] [<c04cead4>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x120/0x1c0) from [<c038fe30>] (kernel_init+0x8/0x158)
[    1.074441] [<c038fe30>] (kernel_init+0x8/0x158) from [<c000e0b8>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x3c)
[    1.082841] Code: e0823283 e3110902 1593301c e593001c (e5904054)


I bisected it down to commit 55acc602faae7c10e53acdca0c70f4936c2539c6, which
is really weird. That is:

commit 55acc602faae7c10e53acdca0c70f4936c2539c6
Merge: e32face ba6857b
Author:     Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
AuthorDate: Thu Oct 17 23:55:55 2013 +0100
Commit:     Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
CommitDate: Thu Oct 17 23:55:55 2013 +0100

    Merge remote-tracking branch 'driver-core/driver-core-next'
    
    Conflicts:
        include/linux/netdevice.h


But there isn't anything controversial in the merge commit.

I tried checking out either side of that merge, and they both boot
fine. I redid the merge myself, and I get no delta compared to your
merge and I still get the same failure.

I've got more failures than dove, I'll try bisecting a few of the others
in the morning (it's late here), hopefully they will help indicate what's
actually going wrong. I'm guessing something just happens to move around
enough to expose a different problem once the two branches are merged.


-Olof