Re: [REGRESSION][BISECTED][PATCH] net: ipv4: fix regression in broadcast routes

[Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@intel.com>]

hi, Brett, hi, Paolo Abeni,

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 10:46:42AM +0000, Brett A C Sheffield wrote:
> On 2025-08-28 12:35, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On 8/28/25 10:17 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > commit: a1b445e1dcd6ee9682d77347faf3545b53354d71 ("[REGRESSION][BISECTED][PATCH] net: ipv4: fix regression in broadcast routes")
> > > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Brett-A-C-Sheffield/net-ipv4-fix-regression-in-broadcast-routes/20250825-181407
> > > patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250822165231.4353-4-bacs@librecast.net/
> > > patch subject: [REGRESSION][BISECTED][PATCH] net: ipv4: fix regression in broadcast routes
> > > 
> > > in testcase: trinity
> > > version: trinity-x86_64-ba2360ed-1_20241228
> > > with following parameters:
> > > 
> > > 	runtime: 300s
> > > 	group: group-04
> > > 	nr_groups: 5
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > config: x86_64-randconfig-104-20250826
> > > compiler: clang-20
> > > test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 16G
> > > 
> > > (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
> > 
> > Since I just merged v3 of the mentioned patch and I'm wrapping the PR
> > for Linus, the above scared me more than a bit.
> > 
> > AFAICS the issue reported here is the  unconditional 'fi' dereference
> > spotted and fixed during code review, so no real problem after all.
> 
> Correct. Jakub spotted the error, it was fixed in a v2 5 days ago, and has since
> been superceded by Oscar's patch, so nothing to worry about.
> 
> Is there a way to indicate to bots not to check superceded patches. In this case
> I'd have though my v2 would have been a signal? Is there something else I should
> have done?

sorry for this. our bot failed to recognize the mail structure to spot out the
v2 patch.

we'll consider how to improve it or be more careful while manual check. sorry
for inconvience caused.

> 
> Brett
> -- 
>