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;
From:   Ricardo =?utf-8?Q?Ca=C3=B1uelo?= <ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@collabora.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@lists.linux.dev>,
        Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        regressions@lists.linux.dev,
        "gustavo.padovan\@collabora.com" <gustavo.padovan@collabora.com>,
        Guillaume Charles Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>,
        denys.f@collabora.com, kernelci@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Makefile.compiler: replace cc-ifversion with compiler-specific macros
References: <CAK7LNAT_cMLGLBz7ugaLpJD3QmZmY8FK56x9nihvWeYhJpi2ag@mail.gmail.com> <20220919170828.3718437-1-ndesaulniers@google.com> <597ef55f-e7c1-ab60-b4aa-0071ff4b5e0e@collabora.com> <CAKwvOdmSrAxx-YY1Na3BSdYuxXCPKK+F0K5V6i+adTn_bVJEsw@mail.gmail.com> <89961dfc-d40f-78e4-5d34-b86b7d152182@collabora.com> <CAKwvOd=4hBcU4fAkddU0b-GOZc9FzTZoj3PFW6ZZrX0jS8x+bg@mail.gmail.com> <17c91d37-7d9c-0df4-2438-2b30ca0b5777@collabora.com> <CAKwvOdk4QO8x_bs64fFRCsMu__AjhXd4Ew2KfgzQOb9Q3FMqSA@mail.gmail.com> <b5d0cf82-0e42-f6a1-c9f5-c145fdc4c622@collabora.com> <CAKwvOdkFxu9hYSL_RCXadpR0dQd1+dZmAUVXdfFiLUfxg4D_Xw@mail.gmail.com> <878rdlk9bi.fsf@rcn-XPS-13-9305.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <CAKwvOd=8LVU+iANkFx18Wm1jg7gYiAXovAmo9t5ZZaVdMULn-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <CAKwvOd=8LVU+iANkFx18Wm1jg7gYiAXovAmo9t5ZZaVdMULn-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2023 10:35:42 +0200
Message-ID: <875y8ok9b5.fsf@rcn-XPS-13-9305.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On jue, may 18 2023 at 14:12:30, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> That's a higher risk change (and has my name on the tested-by tag, yikes).
>
> So is that the culprit of the boot failure you're observing?

Right now it is.

Here's a test run using that commit
(5750121ae7382ebac8d47ce6d68012d6cd1d7926):
https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10373216

Here's one with the commit right after that one
(26ef40de5cbb24728a34a319e8d42cdec99f186c):
https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10371513

Then one with 26ef40de5cbb24728a34a319e8d42cdec99f186c with a revert
commit for 5750121ae7382ebac8d47ce6d68012d6cd1d7926 on top:
https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10371882

But I'm not confident enough to jump ahead and call this a kernel
regression, specially after the bisector confidently said that about
your commit and then it turned out none of us could reproduce it.

There have been some cases where a commit made a test fail (kernel
failing to load, for instance) and the real problem was that the kernel
got bigger than the target was capable of handling. So not a problem
with the commit at all, it was just that the memory mappings needed to
be redefined for that target. What I'm saying is that sometimes a
regression report is really uncovering a problem in the test setup
rather than introducing a bug. Maybe this is one of those cases.

Cheers,
Ricardo