From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mslow1.mail.gandi.net (mslow1.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 775EEEBB for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 06:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net (unknown [217.70.183.193]) by mslow1.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359ACC4001 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 06:48:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54388240002; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 06:48:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenomai.org; s=gm1; t=1692600501; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OFVZFJtQBoxLePUNaiDJW4qpvV2X83XBIVEUld5tJH0=; b=GF6hvW06yLStNZddh81CeqRQNsuge1XaB+isgw0L7to3OEK1sgyymq7lcXTC10Myib/oQ2 iFKggGtBv/QE8M9dxcEdu4n9cVXAuKEoe1iMjTLv894QpQ8vjSS5O1B0V7/SieTO5dox3G fR6T4T3NMwJJj6+PVh7VgAf6rpfsFuC2bc4o9abvwb7H5xOuN8vgNNb5FBZB7LoAkfTwRg iZMVehAasisnrANi5J8iEibIT4lAGbX0pPff7Usm06tF62y8lf2d0JizH4wYw6YbKAVLBx LQgS9ITwW0Ren/4v398qn29MIBBf/RHiRW3CR+9C0+BfgFCjJzzZ/ZaF0s1tJg== References: <87edlkeu1b.fsf@xenomai.org> <87tttiswuf.fsf@xenomai.org> <163ed99e-bb3f-afe0-27d6-eda78c65e6c5@siemens.com> <87ttt8bbrw.fsf@xenomai.org> <20b3bceb-b63b-400e-8d8c-da5252a24f5d@siemens.com> <87bkf84nb7.fsf@xenomai.org> <22412bae-4472-48a6-a20f-83256e07c4b9@siemens.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.8.11; emacs 28.2 From: Philippe Gerum To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Florian Bezdeka , Xenomai Subject: Re: v6.1.y-dovetail-rebase Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:41:25 +0200 In-reply-to: <22412bae-4472-48a6-a20f-83256e07c4b9@siemens.com> Message-ID: <875y58q4b3.fsf@xenomai.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: xenomai@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-GND-Sasl: rpm@xenomai.org Jan Kiszka writes: > On 15.08.23 12:18, Philippe Gerum wrote: >> >> Jan Kiszka writes: >> >>> On 09.08.23 15:11, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>> >>>> Jan Kiszka writes: >>>> >>>>> On 09.08.23 07:52, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> On 01.08.23 15:26, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Florian Bezdeka writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 08:59 +0200, Florian Bezdeka wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2023-07-06 at 21:00 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jan Kiszka writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Philippe, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> quick feedback on latest rebasing: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://source.denx.de/Xenomai/linux-dovetail/-/commit/8f155631c8b51731dfc2ae5145d4dcc68f2ed7ed >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This was likely accidentally folded, right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It looks so. This conditional statement appeared upstream during the >>>>>>>>>> v6.0 cycle it seems, and was unfortunately left unfixed in the dovetail >>>>>>>>>> patch for this entire series. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, I will factor this change out into a separate commit in >>>>>>>>>>> merging v6.1.y-dovetail, for better traceability: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>>>>>>>>>> index ce8bdd804bc7..c843bf352999 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1466,7 +1466,7 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /* The fault is fully completed (including releasing mmap lock) */ >>>>>>>>>>> if (fault & VM_FAULT_COMPLETED) >>>>>>>>>>> - return; >>>>>>>>>>> + goto out; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /* >>>>>>>>>>> * If we need to retry the mmap_lock has already been released, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To my understanding, this was a dovetail fix that applied to previous >>>>>>>>>>> versions as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Only to v6.0, however this series is not maintained dovetail-wise >>>>>>>>>> anymore, so this stayed under the radar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> FYI: This change fixes a real issue here. The 6.1-rebase branch made it >>>>>>>>> through a 24h stress test while the "merge" branch failed. Happily >>>>>>>>> waiting for the next release... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do we have a idea / plan when the next 6.1 dovetail release will >>>>>>>> happen? My internal customer is waiting for that and I want to avoid >>>>>>>> backporting to 6.1.34. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a brewing rebase to v6.1.42 pending tests here, no challenging >>>>>>> source conflict. I pushed the tree untagged to the v6.1.y-rebase branch >>>>>>> if you want to give it a try before Jan updates the stable branch. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We are testing against -rebase anyway (but that needs a trigger which I >>>>>> just provided). The merging branch is only updated once there is a >>>>>> release tagged. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Passed with the Xenomai 3 tests: >>>>> >>>>> https://source.denx.de/Xenomai/xenomai-images/-/pipelines/17252 >>>>> >>>>> But can we update to 6.1.44 directly? Florian mentioned that there are >>>>> Downfall-related fixes in that release. >>>>> >>>>> Jan >>>> >>>> yes, .44 is actually brewing here already. >>>> >>> >>> Now we are .45 even. Will this one be tagged? CI looks good so far. >>> >> >> Nope, .44 was broken due to [1]. .45 looks better with this fix in >> place. This issue triggered on kvm/arm64 w/ PROVE_LOCKING enabled. >> >> [1] https://source.denx.de/Xenomai/linux-dovetail/-/commit/60ae6e4ea6a074698be4d999e96e9c3697b18ea1 >> > > Thanks for tagging v6.1.45-dovetail1 and v5.15.126-dovetail1, I've > updated the merging branches accordingly. How about 5.10? > Not done with testing yet. -- Philippe.