Control: tag -1 upstream On Saturday, 1 April 2023 22:47:35 CEST Guy Durrieu wrote: > I just finished to build the patched kernel. Well done! > After installing it, the system 6.1.0-7 boots again and run fine. > Thus the source was well identified by Bjørn Mork. This is great :-) > I just had problems trying to install > linux-headers-6.1.0-7-amd64_6.1.20-1a~test_amd64.deb, for dependencies > reasons not so clear for me. It is not mandatory anyway. Yeah, there are some improvements to be made for the procedure. > Thanks a lot to all of you for your help ! You're welcome and thanks for doing this. > What next ? 1) Now you get to brag to all your family and friends that you build a Linux kernel :-D 2) The commit that Bjørn identified also contained a "Link:" tag: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230105041059.39366-1-kvijayab@amd.com The best thing to do is to respond to that thread and explain the issue you ran into. At the bottom of the page you can find instructions on how to do that. The To/CC list is quite large, but don't be alarmed by that, that's rather common with kernel development. It's probably a good idea to add 1033732@bugs.debian.org to that list. The instructions also contain this part: "Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting" That's what I've been doing and is considered rather important, so try your best to do that too. In your reply you should put the following things: 1) Your system worked find with kernel 6.1.15, but stopped booting after upgrading to 6.1.20 and resulted in a kernel panic 2) Copy the part between "----" from your initial report so that it shows the kernel panic, your motherboard info and the stack trace 3) Indicate that Bjørn identified ce7d894bed1a539a8d6cff42f6f78f9db0c9c26b from the linux-6.1.y branch as the likely culprit 4) After building a 6.1.20 kernel with just that commit reverted, your system booted normally again. 5) You reported that all to https://bugs.debian.org/1033732 and were asked to report the issue 'upstream' (which is what that mail is). It could be that they'll ask you to test a patch. If it's just a simple/single patch you should be able to try that with the same procedure as you've already done, but replace the patch I provided with one they provide. If you don't understand what they're asking or f.e. the kernel build is/seems too complicated, feel free to ask for help in (just) this bug. Good luck and thanks in advance :-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.