Re: ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for Regression on linux-next (next-20250120) (rev2)

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 08:53:37PM -0000, Patchwork wrote:
>> == Series Details ==
>> 
>> Series: Regression on linux-next (next-20250120) (rev2)
>> URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/143978/
>> State : failure
>> 
>> == Summary ==
>> 
>> Error: patch https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/143978/revisions/2/mbox/ not applied
>> Applying: Regression on linux-next (next-20250120)
>> Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
>> M	fs/debugfs/file.c
>> Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
>> Auto-merging fs/debugfs/file.c
>> CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in fs/debugfs/file.c
>> error: Failed to merge in the changes.
>> hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
>> Patch failed at 0001 Regression on linux-next (next-20250120)
>> When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
>> If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
>> To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
>> Build failed, no error log produced
>
> Not to put too fine a point on that, but... which tree does it fail
> to apply to, seeing that both mainline and -next are identical
> in fs/debugfs/* and the patch in question applies cleanly to either?

drm-tip branch of https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/tip

It's a kind of "linux next for graphics" that we run pre-merge CI on. It
doesn't have other linux-next stuff nor mainline until we backmerge
-rc1. So it doesn't have the stuff you're fixing here either.

Chaitanya & co additionally run tests on linux-next to hopefully catch
regressions before they have a chance to wreak havoc in drm-tip.

Come to think of it, would not be a bad idea to add the baseline info to
these mails. Cc: the CI infra list.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel