On 29.11.23 09:08, Coly Li wrote:

quoted

2023年11月29日 07:47，Bagas Sanjaya [off-list ref] 写道：

I notice a regression report that is rather well-handled on Bugzilla [1].
Quoting from it:

quoted

when booting from 6.7-rc2, compiled with clang, I get this warning on one of my 3 bcachefs volumes:
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 712 at block/badblocks.c:1284 badblocks_check (block/badblocks.c:1284) 
The reason why isn't clear, but the stack trace points to an error in md error handling.
This bug didn't happen in 6.6
there are 3 commits in 6.7-rc2 which may cause them,
in attachment:
- decoded stacktrace of dmesg
- kernel .config

[1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218184

It seems the improved bad blocks code caught a zero-size bio request
from upper layer, this improper behavior was silently neglected before.
It might be too early or simple to decide this is a regression,

Well, it's often better to add an issue to the tracking even if there is
a chance that it's not a real regression, as the issue might otherwise
fall through the cracks. But given...

especially Janpieter closes the report for now.

...this I agree that this is likely not worth tracking, hence:

#regzbot inconclusive: maybe not a regression and report can not
reproduce it anymore

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
That page also explains what to do if mails like this annoy you.