Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/139] 5.10.168-rc1 review

Sasha Levin
2023-02-14T15:09:49Z

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 02:53:13PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 07:20:46AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:50:24AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> > On 2/13/23 06:49, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.168 release.
>> > > There are 139 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, 15 Feb 2023 14:46:51 +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/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.168-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-5.10.y
>> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
>> > >
>> > > thanks,
>> > >
>> > > greg k-h
>> >
>> > There is a regression coming from:
>> >
>> > nvmem: core: fix registration vs use race
>> >
>> > which causes the following to happen for MTD devices:
>> >
>> > [ 6.031640] kobject_add_internal failed for mtd0 with -EEXIST, don't try
>> > to register things with the same name in the same directory.
>> > [ 7.846965] spi-nor: probe of spi0.0 failed with error -17
>> >
>> > attached is a full log with the call trace. This does not happen with
>> > v6.2-rc8 where the MTD partitions are successfully registered.
>>
>> Can you use `git bisect` to find the offending commit?
>
>The reason for this is because, due to how my patch series was
>backported, you have ended up with nvmem_register() initialising
>its embedded device, and then calling device_add() on it _twice_.
>
>Basically, the backport of:
>
> "nvmem: core: fix registration vs use race"
>
>is broken, because the original patch _moved_ the device_add() and
>that has not been carried forward to whatever got applied to stable
>trees.
>
>It looks like the 5.15-stable version of this patch was correct.
>
>Maybe whoever tried to fixup the failure needs to try again?

I've dropped the backport series from both 5.15 and 5.10.

--
Thanks,
Sasha