Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2022 08:11:35 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de, jonathanh@nvidia.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com,
        srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/25] 6.1.1-rc1 review
Message-ID: <20221220161135.GA1983195@roeck-us.net>
References: <20221219182943.395169070@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20221220150049.GE3748047@roeck-us.net>
 <Y6HQfwEnw75iajYr@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y6HQfwEnw75iajYr@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 07:00:49AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 08:22:39PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.1 release.
> > > There are 25 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, 21 Dec 2022 18:29:31 +0000.
> > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > 
> > 
> > Build results:
> > 	total: 155 pass: 155 fail: 0
> > Qemu test results:
> > 	total: 500 pass: 498 fail: 2
> > Failed tests:
> > 	arm:xilinx-zynq-a9:multi_v7_defconfig:usb0:mem128:net,default:zynq-zc702:rootfs
> > 	arm:xilinx-zynq-a9:multi_v7_defconfig:usb0:mem128:zynq-zed:rootfs
> > 
> > The failure bisects to commit e013ba1e4e12 ("usb: ulpi: defer ulpi_register on
> > ulpi_read_id timeout") and is inherited from mainline. Reverting the offending
> > patch fixes the problem.
> 
> Odd, yet that same commit works just fine on 6.0 and 5.15 and 5.10?  I
> hadn't had any reports of this being an issue on Linus's tree either,
> did I miss those?
> 

I testbed has a bad hair day. The reports for the other branches are wrong.
I restarted the tests and expect them to fail there as well. Sorry for that.

You probably didn't see any reports on mainline because I didn't report
the issue there yet. There are so many failures in mainline that it is
a bit difficult to keep up. This would be a full-time job, and I just
don't have that much time, sorry.

Guenter