Re: [PATCH 6.6 000/389] 6.6.76-rc2 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 05:00:43PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 16:54, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 21:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.6.76 release.
> > > There are 389 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, 08 Feb 2025 15:51:12 +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-6.6.76-rc2.gz
> > > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.6.y
> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> >
> > There are three different regressions found and reporting here,
> > We are working on bisecting and investigating these issues,
> 
> We observed a kernel warning on QEMU-ARM64 and FVP while running the
> newly added selftest: arm64: check_hugetlb_options. This issue appears
> on 6.6.76 onward and 6.12.13 onward, as reported in the stable review [1].
> However, the test case passes successfully on stable 6.13.
> 
> The selftests: arm64: check_hugetlb_options test was introduced following
> the recent upgrade of kselftest test sources to the stable 6.13 branch.
> As you are aware, LKFT runs the latest kselftest sources (from stable
> 6.13.x) on 6.12.x, 6.6.x, and older kernels for validation purposes.
> 
> >From Anders' bisection results, we identified that the missing patch on
> 6.12 is likely causing this regression:
> 
> First fixed commit:
> [25c17c4b55def92a01e3eecc9c775a6ee25ca20f]
> hugetlb: arm64: add MTE support
> 
> Could you confirm whether this patch is eligible for backporting to
> 6.12 and 6.6 kernels?
> If backporting is not an option, we will need to skip running this
> test case on older kernels.

The test case itself should properly "skip" if the feature is not
present in the kernel.  Why not fix that up instead?

thanks,

greg k-h