On 23.06.20 16:11, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Jens Markwardt reported a regression in the linux-next runs. with "umh: fix
> processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" (from linux-next) a linux bridge
> with an KVM guests no longer activates :
>
> without patch
> # ip addr show dev virbr1
> 6: virbr1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
> link/ether 52:54:00:1e:3f:c0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> inet 192.168.254.254/24 brd 192.168.254.255 scope global virbr1
> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> with this patch the bridge stays DOWN with NO-CARRIER
>
> # ip addr show dev virbr1
> 6: virbr1: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state DOWN group default qlen 1000
> link/ether 52:54:00:1e:3f:c0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> inet 192.168.254.254/24 brd 192.168.254.255 scope global virbr1
> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> This was bisected in linux-next. Reverting from linux-next also fixes the issue.
>
> Any idea?
FWIW, s390 is big endian. Maybe some of the shifts inn the __KW* macros are wrong.
On 23.06.20 16:23, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 23.06.20 16:11, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> Jens Markwardt reported a regression in the linux-next runs. with "umh: fix
>> processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" (from linux-next) a linux bridge
>> with an KVM guests no longer activates :
>>
>> without patch
>> # ip addr show dev virbr1
>> 6: virbr1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
>> link/ether 52:54:00:1e:3f:c0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>> inet 192.168.254.254/24 brd 192.168.254.255 scope global virbr1
>> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>>
>> with this patch the bridge stays DOWN with NO-CARRIER
>>
>> # ip addr show dev virbr1
>> 6: virbr1: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state DOWN group default qlen 1000
>> link/ether 52:54:00:1e:3f:c0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>> inet 192.168.254.254/24 brd 192.168.254.255 scope global virbr1
>> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>>
>> This was bisected in linux-next. Reverting from linux-next also fixes the issue.
>>
>> Any idea?
>
> FWIW, s390 is big endian. Maybe some of the shifts inn the __KW* macros are wrong.
Does anyone have an idea why "umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" breaks the
linux-bridge on s390?