linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: /proc/cpuinfo: DT: Add support for Revision

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:43:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
cc:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...ian.org>,
	Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: /proc/cpuinfo: DT: Add support for
 Revision

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> In any case, I'm currently not accepting /any/ patches into my tree at
> present; I'm chasing a horrid instability on one of my test platforms
> which is making it impossible to tell whether any particular change or
> changes in my tree is responsible or not for it.  It doesn't seem to be
> a hardware failure (if it was, I'd simply take the board out of the
> nightly test system.)
> 
> It's quite literally taking hours to figure out what's going on - I've
> been on this for about 12 hours now and still not much closer to knowing
> what's causing it (other than I know that -rc1 plus my queue seems to be
> fine, -rc3 plus my queue is definitely broken, -rc3 alone is fine.  So
> something I'm already carrying seems to be responsible, but each time I
> identify a particular patch and drop _just_ that change, I find that the
> problem is back when I try my queue minus the bad changes.  With a test
> cycle time of 20+ minutes (due to the number of boots required to make
> certain of a dependable result), this is /really/ slow progress.
> 
> Right now, I can't be positively sure that /anything/ I have already
> merged isn't a factor in causing this problem, so I don't want to
> augment my tree with any additional patches which would upset my
> ability to move about in the tree, and get reproducable results from
> repeated testing.  To merge something else will probably mean I'll
> have to start again from the beginning and the last 12 hours spent
> testing will have been wasted.

Your publicly visible tree contains only a few mundane patches.
Is that the tree you're testing with?  If no then could you publish it 
for others to have a look and test?


Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/