home  bbs  files  messages ]

      ZZLI4416             linux.debian.bugs.dist             15322 messages      

[ previous | next | reply ]

[ list messages | list forums ]

  Msg # 222 of 15322 on ZZLI4416, Saturday 10-03-25, 1:16  
  From: SALVATORE BONACCORSO  
  To: KEVIN LUMIK  
  Subj: Bug#1116358: linux-image-6.12.48+deb13-a  
 XPost: linux.debian.kernel 
 From: carnil@debian.org 
  
 Control: tags -1 + moreinfo 
  
 Hi Kevin, 
  
 On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 02:28:48PM +0300, Kevin Lumik wrote: 
 > On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 16:09:08 +0200 Salvatore Bonaccorso 
 >  wrote: 
 > > - Can you temporarily test as well the upper kernels from unstable 
 > > €€(6.16.8-1 right now, but soonish 6.16.9-1 as well) to see if the 
 > > €€problem is triggerable there as well? 
 > 
 > I tested the upper kernels and was still able to reproduce the issue on 
 > both 6.16.8-1 and 6.16.9-1. 
  
 Ok thanks for doing so, have just updated as well the metadata to 
 reflect that. 
  
 > > Note: If we find the problem is prosent in 6.16.y then we need to find 
 > > the breaking change between 6.1.y and 6.12.y. It might be asier here 
 > > if we first make the range of potential upstream versions more narrow, 
 > > so you might first do a "manual bisect" on Debian revisions (For that 
 > > use the snapshot.debian.org service to retrieve linux-images uploaded 
 > > to Debian. E.g. go down from 6.12 in "major version" steps until we 
 > > have close enough range of broken/fixed upstream major versions. Then 
 > > perform a normal bisect between the upstream versions. 
 > 
 > Using snapshot.debian.org I have determined that the breaking change was 
 > introduced between 6.11.10 (tested 6.11.10-1) and 6.12 (tested 6.12.3-1 
 > and 6.12~rc6-1~exp1). 
 > 
 > Thank you for your assistance. Let me know what would be the next step. 
  
 Okay so we have a good range to look at. The next steps would be to 
 bisect the changes. Actually it would be good to first test 6.11 
 itself upstream. So the steps to do would be roughly the following, 
 which needs compiling and testing a few kernels: 
  
     git clone https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/st 
 ble/linux-stable.git 
     cd linux-stable 
     git checkout v6.11 
     cp /boot/config-$(uname -r) .config 
     yes '' | make localmodconfig 
     make savedefconfig 
     mv defconfig arch/x86/configs/my_defconfig 
  
     # test 6.11 to ensure this is "good" 
     make my_defconfig 
     make -j $(nproc) bindeb-pkg 
     ... install the resulting .deb package and confirm it successfully 
 boots / 
 problem does not exist 
  
     # test 6.12-rc6 to ensure this is "bad" 
     git checkout v6.12-rc6 
     make my_defconfig 
     make -j $(nproc) bindeb-pkg 
     ... install the resulting .deb package and confirm it fails to boot / 
 problem exists 
  
 With that confirmed, the bisection can start: 
  
     git bisect start 
     git bisect good v6.11 
     git bisect bad v6.12-rc6 
  
 In each bisection step git checks out a state between the oldest 
 known-bad and the newest known-good commit. In each step test using: 
  
     make my_defconfig 
     make -j $(nproc) bindeb-pkg 
     ... install, try to boot / verify if problem exists 
  
 and if the problem is hit run: 
  
     git bisect bad 
  
 and if the problem doesn't trigger run: 
  
     git bisect good 
  
 . Please pay attention to always select the just built kernel for 
 booting, it won't always be the default kernel picked up by grub. 
  
 Iterate until git announces to have identified the first bad commit. 
  
 Then provide the output of 
  
     git bisect log 
  
 In the course of the bisection you might have to uninstall previous 
 kernels again to not exhaust the disk space in /boot. Also in the end 
 uninstall all self-built kernels again. 
  
 Hope this helps so far? 
  
 Regards, 
 Salvatore 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2) 

[ list messages | list forums | previous | next | reply ]

search for:

328,136 visits
(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca