Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 16:55:57 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Daniel =?utf-8?B?RMOtYXo=?= <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, 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,
        conor@kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, chrubis@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/297] 5.15.140-rc1 review
Message-ID: <20231127155557.xv5ljrdxcfcigjfa@quack3>
References: <20231124172000.087816911@linuxfoundation.org>
 <81a11ebe-ea47-4e21-b5eb-536b1a723168@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <81a11ebe-ea47-4e21-b5eb-536b1a723168@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hello!

On Fri 24-11-23 23:45:09, Daniel D?az wrote:
> On 24/11/23 11:50 a.?m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.15.140 release.
> > There are 297 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 Sun, 26 Nov 2023 17:19:17 +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/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.15.140-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-5.15.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> We are noticing a regression with ltp-syscalls' preadv03:

Thanks for report!

> -----8<-----
>   preadv03 preadv03
>   preadv03_64 preadv03_64
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'a' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'a' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'b' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:66: TFAIL: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 0 bytes, expected 512
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:66: TFAIL: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 0 bytes, expected 512
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'a' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'a' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:87: TPASS: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 512 bytes successfully with content 'b' expectedly
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:66: TFAIL: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 0 bytes, expected 512
>   preadv03.c:102: TINFO: Using block size 512
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:77: TFAIL: Buffer wrong at 0 have 62 expected 61
>   preadv03.c:66: TFAIL: preadv(O_DIRECT) read 0 bytes, expected 512
> ----->8-----
> 
> This is seen in the following environments:
> * dragonboard-845c
> * juno-64k_page_size
> * qemu-arm64
> * qemu-armv7
> * qemu-i386
> * qemu-x86_64
> * x86_64-clang
> 
> and on the following RC's:
> * v5.10.202-rc1
> * v5.15.140-rc1
> * v6.1.64-rc1

Hum, even in 6.1? That's odd. Can you please test whether current upstream
vanilla kernel works for you with this test? Thanks!

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR