[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20ec1c1a-b804-408f-b279-853579bffc24@heusel.eu>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:16:44 +0200
From: Christian Heusel <christian@...sel.eu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Schneider <pschneider1968@...glemail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Kernel 6.9 regression: X86: Bogus messages from topology
detection
On 24/05/31 10:13AM, Christian Heusel wrote:
> On 24/05/30 06:24PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30 2024 at 17:53, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > > Let me figure out how to fix that sanely.
> >
> > The proper fix is obviously to unlock CPUID on Intel _before_ anything
> > which depends on cpuid_level is evaluated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > tglx
>
> Hey Thomas,
>
> as reported on the other mail the proposed fix broke the build (see
> below) due to get_cpu_cap() becoming static but still being used in
> other parts of the code.
>
> One of the reporters in the Arch Bugtracker with an Intel Core i7-7700k
> has tested a modified version of this fix[0] with the static change
> reversed on top of the 6.9.2 stable kernel and reports that the patch
> does not fix the issue for them. I have attached their output for the
> patched (dmesg6.9.2-1.5.log) and nonpatched (dmesg6.9.2-1.log) kernel.
>
> Should we also get them to test the mainline version or do you need any
> other debug output?
>
> Cheers,
> gromit
>
> [0]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/linux/-/issues/57#note_189079
Now with the logs really attached!
Cheers,
Chris
View attachment "dmesg6.9.2-1.log" of type "text/plain" (76933 bytes)
View attachment "dmesg6.9.2-1.5.log" of type "text/plain" (78840 bytes)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists