Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 10:19:25PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > > There are 661 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. > > CIP testing did not find any problems here (failures are due to > unavailable boards). > > https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/tree/linux-5.10.y > > Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) Thanks for testing some of these and letting me know. greg k-h
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 02:43:59PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 3/1/21 12:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > > There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. > > 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > > linux-5.10.y > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > > Compiled and booted on my test system. No dmesg regressions. > > Tested-by: Shuah Khan Thanks for all the testing and letting me know. greg k-h
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On 02/03/2021 12:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 11:38:36AM +, Guillaume Tucker wrote: >> On 01/03/2021 19:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. >>> There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. >>> 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz >>> or in the git tree and branch at: >>> >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git >>> linux-5.10.y >>> and the diffstat can be found below. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> greg k-h >> >> >> I've been through the KernelCI results for v5.10.20-rc2 and made >> this manual reply, hoping to eventually get it all automated. >> >> >> >> First there was one build regression with the arm >> realview_defconfig: >> >> kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: implicit declaration of function >> ‘IRQ_WORK_INIT’; did you mean ‘IRQMASK_I_BIT’? >> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> IRQ_WORK_INIT(late_wakeup_func); >> ^ >> IRQMASK_I_BIT >> kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: invalid initializer >> >> >> Full log: >> >> >> https://storage.kernelci.org/stable-rc/linux-5.10.y/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/arm/realview_defconfig/gcc-8/build.log > > That should now be resolved with a new -rc release for 5.4.y and 5.10.y. Confirmed in my other email for v5.10.20-rc4. >> There were also a few new build warnings. Here's a comparison of >> the number of builds that completed with no warnings, with at >> least one warning, and with an error between current stable and >> stable-rc: >> >> pass warn error >> v5.10.19 188 6 0 >> v5.10.20-rc2 180 15 1 >> >> Full details for these 2 revisions respectively: >> >> https://kernelci.org/build/stable/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19/ >> >> https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/ > > That error should be resolved. > > Warnings for non-x86 arches I have not been tracking to try to get down > to 0. That would be a good project for someone to work on... OK, so until we get to 0 we should probably ignore warnings when replying to the -rc review threads. If someone wants to pick this up in the meantime, kernelci.org can definitely help. >> Then on the runtime testing side, there was one boot regression >> detected on imx8mp-evk as detailed here: >> >> https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/603d69ec2924db6b9baddcb2/ >> >> I've re-run a couple of tests with both v5.10.19 and v5.10.20-rc2 >> and also got a failure with v5.10.19, so it looks like it's not >> really a new regression but more of an intermittent problem. >> Bisections are not enabled in NXP's lab so we don't have results >> about which commit caused it. We should chase this up, I've >> already asked if they're OK to enable bisection. Then we may >> bisect with an older revision that is really booting to find the >> root cause... > > Finding that root cause would be good, but doesn't really sound like a > regression yet :) Yep. Bisections are now getting enabled in the NXP test lab, so we'll share the news if it leads to something. FWIW the same test passed with v5.10.20-rc4. >> Presumably it's not OK to have this build error in the v5.10.20 >> release, assuming the boot regression is not new and can be >> ignored, but that's your call. So it seems a bit early for >> KernelCI to stamp it with Tested-by, even though it was tested >> but it's more a matter of clarifying the semantics and whether >> Tested-by implicitly means "works for me". What do you think? > > Try the new release to see if that fixes the build errors for you. All passing now. > And thanks for doing all of the testing here, this round was a rough one > for a variety of different reasons... You're welcome. That's what KernelCI is here for :) It'll just take a bit more typing to automate the replies and use the last stable release as a reference to detect new regressions on stable-rc. I think patc...@kernelci.org you're putting on CC will make things easier in this respect, in fact that's what it was originally created for. Best wishes, Guillaume
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 11:38:36AM +, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > On 01/03/2021 19:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > > There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. > > 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > > linux-5.10.y > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > I've been through the KernelCI results for v5.10.20-rc2 and made > this manual reply, hoping to eventually get it all automated. > > > > First there was one build regression with the arm > realview_defconfig: > > kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: implicit declaration of function > ‘IRQ_WORK_INIT’; did you mean ‘IRQMASK_I_BIT’? > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > IRQ_WORK_INIT(late_wakeup_func); > ^ > IRQMASK_I_BIT > kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: invalid initializer > > > Full log: > > > https://storage.kernelci.org/stable-rc/linux-5.10.y/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/arm/realview_defconfig/gcc-8/build.log That should now be resolved with a new -rc release for 5.4.y and 5.10.y. > There were also a few new build warnings. Here's a comparison of > the number of builds that completed with no warnings, with at > least one warning, and with an error between current stable and > stable-rc: > > pass warn error > v5.10.19 188 6 0 > v5.10.20-rc2 180 15 1 > > Full details for these 2 revisions respectively: > > https://kernelci.org/build/stable/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19/ > > https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/ That error should be resolved. Warnings for non-x86 arches I have not been tracking to try to get down to 0. That would be a good project for someone to work on... > Then on the runtime testing side, there was one boot regression > detected on imx8mp-evk as detailed here: > > https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/603d69ec2924db6b9baddcb2/ > > I've re-run a couple of tests with both v5.10.19 and v5.10.20-rc2 > and also got a failure with v5.10.19, so it looks like it's not > really a new regression but more of an intermittent problem. > Bisections are not enabled in NXP's lab so we don't have results > about which commit caused it. We should chase this up, I've > already asked if they're OK to enable bisection. Then we may > bisect with an older revision that is really booting to find the > root cause... Finding that root cause would be good, but doesn't really sound like a regression yet :) > Presumably it's not OK to have this build error in the v5.10.20 > release, assuming the boot regression is not new and can be > ignored, but that's your call. So it seems a bit early for > KernelCI to stamp it with Tested-by, even though it was tested > but it's more a matter of clarifying the semantics and whether > Tested-by implicitly means "works for me". What do you think? Try the new release to see if that fixes the build errors for you. And thanks for doing all of the testing here, this round was a rough one for a variety of different reasons... thanks, greg k-h
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On 01/03/2021 19:37, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. > 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz > or in the git tree and branch at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > linux-5.10.y > and the diffstat can be found below. > > thanks, > > greg k-h I've been through the KernelCI results for v5.10.20-rc2 and made this manual reply, hoping to eventually get it all automated. First there was one build regression with the arm realview_defconfig: kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘IRQ_WORK_INIT’; did you mean ‘IRQMASK_I_BIT’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] IRQ_WORK_INIT(late_wakeup_func); ^ IRQMASK_I_BIT kernel/rcu/tree.c:683:2: error: invalid initializer Full log: https://storage.kernelci.org/stable-rc/linux-5.10.y/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/arm/realview_defconfig/gcc-8/build.log There were also a few new build warnings. Here's a comparison of the number of builds that completed with no warnings, with at least one warning, and with an error between current stable and stable-rc: pass warn error v5.10.19 188 6 0 v5.10.20-rc2 180 15 1 Full details for these 2 revisions respectively: https://kernelci.org/build/stable/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19/ https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-5.10.y/kernel/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0/ Then on the runtime testing side, there was one boot regression detected on imx8mp-evk as detailed here: https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/603d69ec2924db6b9baddcb2/ I've re-run a couple of tests with both v5.10.19 and v5.10.20-rc2 and also got a failure with v5.10.19, so it looks like it's not really a new regression but more of an intermittent problem. Bisections are not enabled in NXP's lab so we don't have results about which commit caused it. We should chase this up, I've already asked if they're OK to enable bisection. Then we may bisect with an older revision that is really booting to find the root cause... Presumably it's not OK to have this build error in the v5.10.20 release, assuming the boot regression is not new and can be ignored, but that's your call. So it seems a bit early for KernelCI to stamp it with Tested-by, even though it was tested but it's more a matter of clarifying the semantics and whether Tested-by implicitly means "works for me". What do you think? Best wishes, Guillaume
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 15:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 03:20:32PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > Hi Greg and Linus, > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:45, Naresh Kamboju > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 01:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > > > > There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. > > > > 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz > > > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > > > > linux-5.10.y > > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > Results from Linaro’s test farm. > > > Regressions detected on all devices (arm64, arm, x86_64 and i386). > > > > > > hangup011 TFAIL : hangup01.c:133: unexpected message 3 > > > > > > This failure is specific to stable-rc 5.10 and 5.11. > > > Test PASS on mainline and Linux next kernel. > > > > > > > I have reverted these two patches and the test case got PASS > > on Linux version 5.10.20-rc2. > > > > hangup01 1 TPASS : child process exited with status 0 > > > >Linus Torvalds > >tty: implement read_iter > > > >Linus Torvalds > >tty: convert tty_ldisc_ops 'read()' function to take a kernel pointer > > Odd. > > Is 5.12-rc1 also failing with this test as well? No. Test PASS on v5.12-rc1. - Naresh
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 15:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 03:20:32PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > Hi Greg and Linus, > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:45, Naresh Kamboju > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 01:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > > > > There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. > > > > 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz > > > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > > > > linux-5.10.y > > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > Results from Linaro’s test farm. > > > Regressions detected on all devices (arm64, arm, x86_64 and i386). > > > > > > hangup011 TFAIL : hangup01.c:133: unexpected message 3 > > > > > > This failure is specific to stable-rc 5.10 and 5.11. > > > Test PASS on mainline and Linux next kernel. > > > > > > > I have reverted these two patches and the test case got PASS > > on Linux version 5.10.20-rc2. > > > > hangup01 1 TPASS : child process exited with status 0 > > > >Linus Torvalds > >tty: implement read_iter > > > >Linus Torvalds > >tty: convert tty_ldisc_ops 'read()' function to take a kernel pointer > > Odd. > > Is 5.12-rc1 also failing with this test as well? 5.10 Failed 5.11 Failed 5.12 PASS This LTP pty hangup01 PASS Linux mainline and linux next. - Naresh
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 03:20:32PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > Hi Greg and Linus, > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:45, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 01:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > wrote: > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > > > There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. > > > 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz > > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > > > linux-5.10.y > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > Results from Linaro’s test farm. > > Regressions detected on all devices (arm64, arm, x86_64 and i386). > > > > hangup011 TFAIL : hangup01.c:133: unexpected message 3 > > > > This failure is specific to stable-rc 5.10 and 5.11. > > Test PASS on mainline and Linux next kernel. > > > > I have reverted these two patches and the test case got PASS > on Linux version 5.10.20-rc2. > > hangup01 1 TPASS : child process exited with status 0 > >Linus Torvalds >tty: implement read_iter > >Linus Torvalds >tty: convert tty_ldisc_ops 'read()' function to take a kernel pointer Odd. Is 5.12-rc1 also failing with this test as well? thanks, greg k-h
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
Hi Greg and Linus, On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:45, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 01:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > > There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. > > 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > > linux-5.10.y > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > Results from Linaro’s test farm. > Regressions detected on all devices (arm64, arm, x86_64 and i386). > > hangup011 TFAIL : hangup01.c:133: unexpected message 3 > > This failure is specific to stable-rc 5.10 and 5.11. > Test PASS on mainline and Linux next kernel. > I have reverted these two patches and the test case got PASS on Linux version 5.10.20-rc2. hangup01 1 TPASS : child process exited with status 0 Linus Torvalds tty: implement read_iter Linus Torvalds tty: convert tty_ldisc_ops 'read()' function to take a kernel pointer ref: https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/2330549#L1667 https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/2330550#L1202 - Naresh
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 01:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. > 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz > or in the git tree and branch at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > linux-5.10.y > and the diffstat can be found below. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Results from Linaro’s test farm. Regressions detected on all devices (arm64, arm, x86_64 and i386). hangup011 TFAIL : hangup01.c:133: unexpected message 3 This failure is specific to stable-rc 5.10 and 5.11. Test PASS on mainline and Linux next kernel. Summary kernel: 5.10.20-rc2 git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git git branch: linux-5.10.y git commit: 92929e15cdc088938051b73538d9d4d60844f9d4 git describe: v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0 Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.10.y/build/v5.10.19-662-g92929e15cdc0 Regressions (compared to build v5.10.19) ltp-pty-tests: * hangup01 Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing -- Linaro LKFT https://lkft.linaro.org
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On 3/1/21 11:37 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. > 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz > or in the git tree and branch at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > linux-5.10.y > and the diffstat can be found below. > > thanks, > > greg k-h On ARCH_BRCMSTB using 32-bit and 64-bit ARM kernels: Tested-by: Florian Fainelli -- Florian
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
On 3/1/21 12:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +. 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-5.10.20-rc2.gz or in the git tree and branch at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y and the diffstat can be found below. thanks, greg k-h Compiled and booted on my test system. No dmesg regressions. Tested-by: Shuah Khan thanks, -- Shuah
Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
Hi! > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release. > There are 661 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. CIP testing did not find any problems here (failures are due to unavailable boards). https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/tree/linux-5.10.y Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) Best regards, Pavel -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[PATCH 5.10 000/661] 5.10.20-rc2 review
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.20 release.
There are 661 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, 03 Mar 2021 19:34:53 +.
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-5.10.20-rc2.gz
or in the git tree and branch at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
linux-5.10.y
and the diffstat can be found below.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
Pseudo-Shortlog of commits:
Greg Kroah-Hartman
Linux 5.10.20-rc2
Cong Wang
net_sched: fix RTNL deadlock again caused by request_module()
Takeshi Misawa
net: qrtr: Fix memory leak in qrtr_tun_open
Vlad Buslov
net: sched: fix police ext initialization
Jason A. Donenfeld
wireguard: queueing: get rid of per-peer ring buffers
Jason A. Donenfeld
wireguard: selftests: test multiple parallel streams
Jason A. Donenfeld
net: icmp: pass zeroed opts from icmp{,v6}_ndo_send before sending
Leon Romanovsky
ipv6: silence compilation warning for non-IPV6 builds
Sumit Garg
kgdb: fix to kill breakpoints on initmem after boot
Ville Syrjälä
drm/i915: Reject 446-480MHz HDMI clock on GLK
Nikos Tsironis
dm era: only resize metadata in preresume
Nikos Tsironis
dm era: Reinitialize bitset cache before digesting a new writeset
Nikos Tsironis
dm era: Use correct value size in equality function of writeset tree
Nikos Tsironis
dm era: Fix bitset memory leaks
Nikos Tsironis
dm era: Verify the data block size hasn't changed
Nikos Tsironis
dm era: Update in-core bitset after committing the metadata
Nikos Tsironis
dm era: Recover committed writeset after crash
Mikulas Patocka
dm writecache: fix writing beyond end of underlying device when shrinking
Mikulas Patocka
dm writecache: return the exact table values that were set
Mikulas Patocka
dm writecache: fix performance degradation in ssd mode
Jeffle Xu
dm table: fix zoned iterate_devices based device capability checks
Jeffle Xu
dm table: fix DAX iterate_devices based device capability checks
Jeffle Xu
dm table: fix iterate_devices based device capability checks
Mikulas Patocka
dm: fix deadlock when swapping to encrypted device
Andreas Gruenbacher
gfs2: Recursive gfs2_quota_hold in gfs2_iomap_end
Andreas Gruenbacher
gfs2: Lock imbalance on error path in gfs2_recover_one
Bob Peterson
gfs2: Don't skip dlm unlock if glock has an lvb
Bob Peterson
gfs2: fix glock confusion in function signal_our_withdraw
Masahisa Kojima
spi: spi-synquacer: fix set_cs handling
Rasmus Villemoes
spi: fsl: invert spisel_boot signal on MPC8309
Al Viro
sparc32: fix a user-triggerable oops in clear_user()
Jaegeuk Kim
f2fs: flush data when enabling checkpoint back
Chao Yu
f2fs: enforce the immutable flag on open files
Chao Yu
f2fs: fix out-of-repair __setattr_copy()
Huacai Chen
irqchip/loongson-pch-msi: Use bitmap_zalloc() to allocate bitmap
Johannes Berg
um: defer killing userspace on page table update failures
Johannes Berg
um: mm: check more comprehensively for stub changes
Cornelia Huck
virtio/s390: implement virtio-ccw revision 2 correctly
Heiko Carstens
s390/vtime: fix inline assembly clobber list
Jens Axboe
proc: don't allow async path resolution of /proc/thread-self components
Chen Yu
cpufreq: intel_pstate: Get per-CPU max freq via MSR_HWP_CAPABILITIES if
available
Rafael J. Wysocki
cpufreq: intel_pstate: Change intel_pstate_get_hwp_max() argument
Shawn Guo
cpufreq: qcom-hw: drop devm_xxx() calls from init/exit hooks
Viresh Kumar
thermal: cpufreq_cooling: freq_qos_update_request() returns < 0 on error
Chris Wilson
kcmp: Support selection of SYS_kcmp without CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki
zonefs: Fix file size of zones in full condition
Namjae Jeon
exfat: fix shift-out-of-bounds in exfat_fill_super()
Muchun Song
printk: fix deadlock when kernel panic
Tim Harvey
mfd: gateworks-gsc: Fix interrupt type
Maxim Kiselev
gpio: pcf857x: Fix missing first interrupt
Alexander Usyskin
mei: me: add adler lake point LP DID
Alexander Usyskin
mei: me: add adler lake point S DID
Tomas Winkler
mei: me: emmitsburg workstation DID
Alexander Usyskin
mei: fix transfer over dma with extended header
Subbaraman Narayanamurthy
spmi: spmi-pmic-arb: Fix hw_irq overflow
Christophe Leroy
powerpc/32s: Add missing call to kuep_lock on syscall entry
Hari Bathini
powerpc/kexec_file: fix FDT size estimation for kdump kernel
Christophe Leroy
powerpc/32: Preserve cr1 in exception prolog stack check to fix build error
Shirley
