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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

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?

> Let me know your thoughts.
> 
> However, given that this is not a new failure for this stable update we can
> handle in subsequent updates. So for this update ...
> 
> Tested-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>

Wonderful, thanks for testing!

greg k-h