January 2024 - openSUSE Kernel Bugs - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[Bug 1218153] reduce SERIAL_8250_RUNTIME_UARTS?
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 22 Jan '24

22 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218153 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218153#c12 --- Comment #12 from Michal Kubeček <mkubecek(a)suse.com> --- I don't dare to guess how frequent it is but I wouldn't be really surprised if many of those who need a serial port (an actual one) for whatever reason were using an add-on card (for the same reason as me). But you are missing the important point: such users do exist and if we go with the change as suggested, in few weeks their serial port suddenly stops working without any warning and without any clue what happened and why. And I'm not really convinced that the reasoning presented so far does justify exposing our users - even if just a minority - to such experience. For the record: it's not about me, I can simply add a command line parameter to my config and go on, I already have few of them after all. But that's only because I was warned by seeing this pull request. Others would not be so lucky. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1218153] reduce SERIAL_8250_RUNTIME_UARTS?
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 22 Jan '24

22 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218153 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218153#c11 --- Comment #11 from Ludwig Nussel <lnussel(a)suse.com> --- I'm sure there are setups with extra serial cards but how common is that, esp for TW anymore? So yes, those who have special setups need to set module parameters, just like on The main argument is that we might deviate from an upstream setting to cater for some rather exotic use cases. Funnily enough raising the setting was declined upstream in 2010, asking downstream to change the setting instead. Quite backwards. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-serial/msg03031.html Weird that we still have components that are that static. In a world full of VMs etc I would have expected only the devices nodes to exist that actually, well, exist :-) Anyway, feel free to do whatever. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1218948] kernel:[ 3380.214840][ C0] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 112s! [kworker/0:2:156]
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 22 Jan '24

22 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948#c27 --- Comment #27 from Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.com> --- Good to hear! I pushed all fixes now to SLE15-SP5 branch. The next update kernel (likely in February) should include all those fixes. I keep this bug opened for a while until getting confirmation from others. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1218948] kernel:[ 3380.214840][ C0] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 112s! [kworker/0:2:156]
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 22 Jan '24

22 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948#c24 --- Comment #24 from Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.com> --- Thanks for confirmation! I'm building another kernel with the backports of a few rest upstream fixes for that driver. It's being built in OBS home:tiwai:bsc1218948-2 repo. The package will appear later at http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/tiwai:/bsc1218948-2/pool/ Please check it and verify whether the errors are gone with it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1218948] kernel:[ 3380.214840][ C0] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 112s! [kworker/0:2:156]
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 21 Jan '24

21 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948#c22 --- Comment #22 from Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.com> --- Thanks, it looks promising. So the crash seems to have been already fixed in the latest SLE15-SP5 git branch. The log still shows some errors from the driver, e.g. [ 10.632775] ax88179_178a 2-2.2:2.1 eth1: Failed to write reg index 0x0006: -32 Doesn't this appear in the previously good working kernel (*-55.39)? i.e. it's a regression? If it's a regression, I can try to reduce the patches that may have introduced it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1218948] kernel:[ 3380.214840][ C0] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 112s! [kworker/0:2:156]
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 21 Jan '24

21 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948#c17 --- Comment #17 from Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.com> --- If the kernel in comment 16 still shows the same problem: now I'm building a test kernel with the revert of a patch in OBS home:tiwai:bsc1218948 repo. Once after the build finishes (takes an hour or so), the package will appear at: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/tiwai:/bsc1218948/pool/ Please give it a try later, if the kernel in OBS Kernel:SLE15-SP5 failed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1218948] kernel:[ 3380.214840][ C0] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 112s! [kworker/0:2:156]
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 21 Jan '24

21 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948#c16 --- Comment #16 from Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.com> --- And another favor of a quick test. Could you test the kernel in OBS Kernel:SLE15-SP5 repo? http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Kernel:/SLE15-SP5/pool/ This is the build from the latest SLE15-SP5 git branch. It's an unofficial build, hence you'd need to turn off Secure Boot if it's enabled. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1218948] kernel:[ 3380.214840][ C0] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 112s! [kworker/0:2:156]
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 21 Jan '24

21 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948#c15 --- Comment #15 from Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.com> --- Oh wait, I see Johan's machine has also ax888179, so it can be the same cause. If Chris' machine has the same module, it's likely the same issue. I'm going to provide a test kernel with the vert of the suspected patches. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1218948] kernel:[ 3380.214840][ C0] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 112s! [kworker/0:2:156]
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 21 Jan '24

21 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948 Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(chris@computersal |needinfo? |at.de) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1218948] kernel:[ 3380.214840][ C0] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 112s! [kworker/0:2:156]
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 21 Jan '24

21 Jan '24

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218948#c14 --- Comment #14 from Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.com> --- And I'm testing with *-55.44 kernel locally, but can't reproduce the problem. I thought it's because of an AMD laptop (Thinkpad T14s), but Joan's machine seems to be an AMD, too. Hmm. Do you guys see at which timing does the crash happens? I guess Jonathan's case might be different from others. It's pointing to a crash at ax88179 driver and the recent backport might be the culprit. So, Jonathan, please open another bug for yours. If it turned out to be the same cause, we can close as a dup later, too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0