From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5084AC2D0D1 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:24:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27615227BF for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:24:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576686270; bh=Q4e5j7/4SLJOPMSxB0NtqZ2Ns2coqYzN2mxr/D2rKHM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=LQmRPuGeYeSWzjU1/uXOQS2xsZYmWh/IEtB72AGkC8qEBhObTH5LtpIsX3auG6X5p neh7Yv3VUhUFzrKQTvzE4nvBGHCbCtwXXtIVqvMf9GK9/BAh0mDYuj80HCfqPq2ErB zotoJG6zjyDmidaiRRQhQkTF4L33DY5XjZ0xkG1Y= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727671AbfLRQY3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:24:29 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57508 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727640AbfLRQY1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1B90227BF; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:24:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576686266; bh=Q4e5j7/4SLJOPMSxB0NtqZ2Ns2coqYzN2mxr/D2rKHM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=NfbBJ5mVaBqNsDOFvJFJkcmF3fQO8TrBQspcO7Db7utJfSe19fPU5IRiGdvVpveEk xkcb5e3vuftjSycAgRkp0JKOt/wqbA9GRoTxKCeSa/drLrd7CeJpvrenGvjQgDbfLj vi8UnC5pD+mNa7zBxmLob/dNS8kWJ2lFkx0g2nz8= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 17:24:24 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Mark Brown Cc: Siddharth Kapoor , lee.jones@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel panic on Google Pixel devices due to regulator patch Message-ID: <20191218162424.GA482612@kroah.com> References: <20191218113458.GA3219@sirena.org.uk> <20191218122157.GA17086@kroah.com> <20191218131114.GD3219@sirena.org.uk> <20191218142219.GB234539@kroah.com> <20191218161806.GF3219@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191218161806.GF3219@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 04:18:06PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 03:22:19PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 01:11:14PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 01:21:57PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > It is, but it's the latest stable kernel (well close to), and your patch > > > > was tagged by you to be backported to here, so if there's a problem with > > > > a stable branch, I want to know about it as I don't want to see > > > > regressions happen in it. > > > > I don't track what's in older stable kernels, it wanted to go back at > > > least one kernel revision but the issue has been around since forever. > > > Ok, you can always mark patches that way if you want to :) > > That's what a tag to stable with no particular revision attached to it > is isn't it? No, that means "drag it as far back as Greg can easily do it" :) > > > If you don't want to be messing with timing luck then you probably want > > > to be having a look at what Sasha's bot is doing, it's picking up a lot > > > of things that are *well* into this sort of territory (and the bad > > > interactions with out of tree code territory). I personally would not > > > be using stable these days if I wasn't prepared to be digging into > > > something like this. > > > I watch what his bot is doing, and we have tons of testing happening as > > well, which is reflected by the fact that THIS WAS CAUGHT HERE. This is > > You don't have anywhere near the level of testing that you'd need to > cover what the bot is trying to pull in, the subsystem and driver > coverage is extremely thin relative to the enthusiasm with which things > are being picked up. All the pushback I see in review is on me for > being conservative about what gets pulled into stable and worrying about > interactions with out of tree code. > > > a sign that things are working, it's just that some SoC trees are slower > > than mainline by a few months, and that's fine. It's worlds better than > > the SoC trees that are no where close to mainline, and as such, totally > > insecure :) > > What you appear to have caught here is an interaction with some > unreviewed vendor code - how much of that is going on in the vendor > trees you're not testing? If we want to encourage people to pull in > stable we should be paying attention to that sort of stuff. I get weekly merge reports from all of the major SoC vendors when they pull these releases into their tree and run through their full suite of tests. So I am paying attention to this type of thing. What I need to figure out here is what is going wrong and why the SoC's testing did not catch this. That's going to take a bit longer... thanks, greg k-h