Re: [PATCH 6.12 00/55] 6.12.32-rc1 review

[Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>]

On 04/06/2025 11:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 10:57:29AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> On 04/06/2025 10:41, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 15:47:17 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.32 release.
>>>> There are 55 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 Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:42:20 +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-6.12.32-rc1.gz
>>>> or in the git tree and branch at:
>>>> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.12.y
>>>> and the diffstat can be found below.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> greg k-h
>>>
>>> Failures detected for Tegra ...
>>>
>>> Test results for stable-v6.12:
>>>       10 builds:	10 pass, 0 fail
>>>       28 boots:	28 pass, 0 fail
>>>       116 tests:	115 pass, 1 fail
>>>
>>> Linux version:	6.12.32-rc1-gce2ebbe0294c
>>> Boards tested:	tegra124-jetson-tk1, tegra186-p2771-0000,
>>>                   tegra186-p3509-0000+p3636-0001, tegra194-p2972-0000,
>>>                   tegra194-p3509-0000+p3668-0000, tegra20-ventana,
>>>                   tegra210-p2371-2180, tegra210-p3450-0000,
>>>                   tegra30-cardhu-a04
>>>
>>> Test failures:	tegra186-p2771-0000: pm-system-suspend.sh
>>
>>
>> I have been looking at this and this appears to be an intermittent failure
>> that has crept in. Bisect is point to the following change which landed in
>> v6.12.31 and we did not catch it ...
>>
>> # first bad commit: [d95fdee2253e612216e72f29c65b92ec42d254eb] cpufreq:
>> tegra186: Share policy per cluster
>>
>> I have tested v6.15 which has this change and I don't see the same issue
>> there. I have also tested v6.6.y because this was backported to the various
>> stable branches and I don't see any problems there. Only v6.12.y appears to
>> be impacted which is odd (although this test only runs on v6.6+ kernels for
>> this board). However, the testing is conclusive that this change is a
>> problem for v6.12.y.
>>
>> So I think we do need to revert the above change for v6.12.y but I am not
>> sure if it makes sense to revert for earlier stable branches too?
> 
> Yes, let's revert it for the older ones as well as it would look odd,
> and our tools might notice that we had "skipped" a stable release tree.
> 
> Can you send the revert or do you need us to?

I can no problem. Do you need a revert for each stable branch or just 
one email with the commit to revert for each stable branch?

Jon

-- 
nvpublic