5.8 main #79
Merged
5.8 main #79
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
frank-w
reviewed
Aug 30, 2020
frank-w
reviewed
Aug 30, 2020
Not yet tested.
I don't have tools to measure it. But it's seems to be a standard way for many mali-powered boards. |
frank-w
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2022
…e_zone
btrfs_can_activate_zone() can be called with the device_list_mutex already
held, which will lead to a deadlock:
insert_dev_extents() // Takes device_list_mutex
`-> insert_dev_extent()
`-> btrfs_insert_empty_item()
`-> btrfs_insert_empty_items()
`-> btrfs_search_slot()
`-> btrfs_cow_block()
`-> __btrfs_cow_block()
`-> btrfs_alloc_tree_block()
`-> btrfs_reserve_extent()
`-> find_free_extent()
`-> find_free_extent_update_loop()
`-> can_allocate_chunk()
`-> btrfs_can_activate_zone() // Takes device_list_mutex again
Instead of using the RCU on fs_devices->device_list we
can use fs_devices->alloc_list, protected by the chunk_mutex to traverse
the list of active devices.
We are in the chunk allocation thread. The newer chunk allocation
happens from the devices in the fs_device->alloc_list protected by the
chunk_mutex.
btrfs_create_chunk()
lockdep_assert_held(&info->chunk_mutex);
gather_device_info
list_for_each_entry(device, &fs_devices->alloc_list, dev_alloc_list)
Also, a device that reappears after the mount won't join the alloc_list
yet and, it will be in the dev_list, which we don't want to consider in
the context of the chunk alloc.
[15.166572] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
[15.167117] 5.17.0-rc6-dennis #79 Not tainted
[15.167487] --------------------------------------------
[15.167733] kworker/u8:3/146 is trying to acquire lock:
[15.167733] ffff888102962ee0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: find_free_extent+0x15a/0x14f0 [btrfs]
[15.167733]
[15.167733] but task is already holding lock:
[15.167733] ffff888102962ee0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_create_pending_block_groups+0x20a/0x560 [btrfs]
[15.167733]
[15.167733] other info that might help us debug this:
[15.167733] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[15.167733]
[15.171834] CPU0
[15.171834] ----
[15.171834] lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
[15.171834] lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
[15.171834]
[15.171834] *** DEADLOCK ***
[15.171834]
[15.171834] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[15.171834]
[15.171834] 5 locks held by kworker/u8:3/146:
[15.171834] #0: ffff888100050938 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1c3/0x5a0
[15.171834] #1: ffffc9000067be80 ((work_completion)(&fs_info->async_data_reclaim_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1c3/0x5a0
[15.176244] #2: ffff88810521e620 (sb_internal){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: flush_space+0x335/0x600 [btrfs]
[15.176244] #3: ffff888102962ee0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_create_pending_block_groups+0x20a/0x560 [btrfs]
[15.176244] #4: ffff8881152e4b78 (btrfs-dev-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x27/0x130 [btrfs]
[15.179641]
[15.179641] stack backtrace:
[15.179641] CPU: 1 PID: 146 Comm: kworker/u8:3 Not tainted 5.17.0-rc6-dennis #79
[15.179641] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1.fc35 04/01/2014
[15.179641] Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs]
[15.179641] Call Trace:
[15.179641] <TASK>
[15.179641] dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x59
[15.179641] __lock_acquire.cold+0x217/0x2b2
[15.179641] lock_acquire+0xbf/0x2b0
[15.183838] ? find_free_extent+0x15a/0x14f0 [btrfs]
[15.183838] __mutex_lock+0x8e/0x970
[15.183838] ? find_free_extent+0x15a/0x14f0 [btrfs]
[15.183838] ? find_free_extent+0x15a/0x14f0 [btrfs]
[15.183838] ? lock_is_held_type+0xd7/0x130
[15.183838] ? find_free_extent+0x15a/0x14f0 [btrfs]
[15.183838] find_free_extent+0x15a/0x14f0 [btrfs]
[15.183838] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x24/0x40
[15.183838] ? btrfs_get_alloc_profile+0x106/0x230 [btrfs]
[15.187601] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x131/0x260 [btrfs]
[15.187601] btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb5/0x3b0 [btrfs]
[15.187601] __btrfs_cow_block+0x138/0x600 [btrfs]
[15.187601] btrfs_cow_block+0x10f/0x230 [btrfs]
[15.187601] btrfs_search_slot+0x55f/0xbc0 [btrfs]
[15.187601] ? lock_is_held_type+0xd7/0x130
[15.187601] btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x2d/0x60 [btrfs]
[15.187601] btrfs_create_pending_block_groups+0x2b3/0x560 [btrfs]
[15.187601] __btrfs_end_transaction+0x36/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[15.192037] flush_space+0x374/0x600 [btrfs]
[15.192037] ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
[15.192037] ? btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x49/0x180 [btrfs]
[15.192037] ? lock_release+0x131/0x2b0
[15.192037] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x70/0x180 [btrfs]
[15.192037] process_one_work+0x24c/0x5a0
[15.192037] worker_thread+0x4a/0x3d0
Fixes: a85f05e ("btrfs: zoned: avoid chunk allocation if active block group has enough space")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.16+
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
frank-w
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2022
[ Upstream commit 3fed9e5 ] If a compat process tries to execute an unknown system call above the __ARM_NR_COMPAT_END number, the kernel sends a SIGILL signal to the offending process. Information about the error is printed to dmesg in compat_arm_syscall() -> arm64_notify_die() -> arm64_force_sig_fault() -> arm64_show_signal(). arm64_show_signal() interprets a non-zero value for current->thread.fault_code as an exception syndrome and displays the message associated with the ESR_ELx.EC field (bits 31:26). current->thread.fault_code is set in compat_arm_syscall() -> arm64_notify_die() with the bad syscall number instead of a valid ESR_ELx value. This means that the ESR_ELx.EC field has the value that the user set for the syscall number and the kernel can end up printing bogus exception messages*. For example, for the syscall number 0x68000000, which evaluates to ESR_ELx.EC value of 0x1A (ESR_ELx_EC_FPAC) the kernel prints this error: [ 18.349161] syscall[300]: unhandled exception: ERET/ERETAA/ERETAB, ESR 0x68000000, Oops - bad compat syscall(2) in syscall[10000+50000] [ 18.350639] CPU: 2 PID: 300 Comm: syscall Not tainted 5.18.0-rc1 #79 [ 18.351249] Hardware name: Pine64 RockPro64 v2.0 (DT) [..] which is misleading, as the bad compat syscall has nothing to do with pointer authentication. Stop arm64_show_signal() from printing exception syndrome information by having compat_arm_syscall() set the ESR_ELx value to 0, as it has no meaning for an invalid system call number. The example above now becomes: [ 19.935275] syscall[301]: unhandled exception: Oops - bad compat syscall(2) in syscall[10000+50000] [ 19.936124] CPU: 1 PID: 301 Comm: syscall Not tainted 5.18.0-rc1-00005-g7e08006d4102 #80 [ 19.936894] Hardware name: Pine64 RockPro64 v2.0 (DT) [..] which although shows less information because the syscall number, wrongfully advertised as the ESR value, is missing, it is better than showing plainly wrong information. The syscall number can be easily obtained with strace. *A 32-bit value above or equal to 0x8000_0000 is interpreted as a negative integer in compat_arm_syscal() and the condition scno < __ARM_NR_COMPAT_END evaluates to true; the syscall will exit to userspace in this case with the ENOSYS error code instead of arm64_notify_die() being called. Signed-off-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220425114444.368693-3-alexandru.elisei@arm.com Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
frank-w
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2023
We try to build affinity mask via create_affinity_masks() unconditionally which may lead several issues: - the affinity mask is not used for parent without affinity support (only VDUSE support the affinity now) - the logic of create_affinity_masks() might not work for devices other than block. For example it's not rare in the networking device where the number of queues could exceed the number of CPUs. Such case breaks the current affinity logic which is based on group_cpus_evenly() who assumes the number of CPUs are not less than the number of groups. This can trigger a warning[1]: if (ret >= 0) WARN_ON(nr_present + nr_others < numgrps); Fixing this by only build the affinity masks only when - Driver passes affinity descriptor, driver like virtio-blk can make sure to limit the number of queues when it exceeds the number of CPUs - Parent support affinity setting config ops This help to avoid the warning. More optimizations could be done on top. [1] [ 682.146655] WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 1550 at lib/group_cpus.c:400 group_cpus_evenly+0x1aa/0x1c0 [ 682.146668] CPU: 6 PID: 1550 Comm: vdpa Not tainted 6.5.0-rc5jason+ #79 [ 682.146671] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.2-0-gea1b7a073390-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [ 682.146673] RIP: 0010:group_cpus_evenly+0x1aa/0x1c0 [ 682.146676] Code: 4c 89 e0 5b 5d 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e c3 cc cc cc cc e8 1b c4 74 ff 48 89 ef e8 13 ac 98 ff 4c 89 e7 45 31 e4 e8 08 ac 98 ff eb c2 <0f> 0b eb b6 e8 fd 05 c3 00 45 31 e4 eb e5 cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc [ 682.146679] RSP: 0018:ffffc9000215f498 EFLAGS: 00010293 [ 682.146682] RAX: 000000000001f1e0 RBX: 0000000000000041 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 682.146684] RDX: ffff888109922058 RSI: 0000000000000041 RDI: 0000000000000030 [ 682.146686] RBP: ffff888109922058 R08: ffffc9000215f498 R09: ffffc9000215f4a0 [ 682.146687] R10: 00000000000198d0 R11: 0000000000000030 R12: ffff888107e02800 [ 682.146689] R13: 0000000000000030 R14: 0000000000000030 R15: 0000000000000041 [ 682.146692] FS: 00007fef52315740(0000) GS:ffff888237380000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 682.146695] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 682.146696] CR2: 00007fef52509000 CR3: 0000000110dbc004 CR4: 0000000000370ee0 [ 682.146698] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [ 682.146700] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [ 682.146701] Call Trace: [ 682.146703] <TASK> [ 682.146705] ? __warn+0x7b/0x130 [ 682.146709] ? group_cpus_evenly+0x1aa/0x1c0 [ 682.146712] ? report_bug+0x1c8/0x1e0 [ 682.146717] ? handle_bug+0x3c/0x70 [ 682.146721] ? exc_invalid_op+0x14/0x70 [ 682.146723] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20 [ 682.146727] ? group_cpus_evenly+0x1aa/0x1c0 [ 682.146729] ? group_cpus_evenly+0x15c/0x1c0 [ 682.146731] create_affinity_masks+0xaf/0x1a0 [ 682.146735] virtio_vdpa_find_vqs+0x83/0x1d0 [ 682.146738] ? __pfx_default_calc_sets+0x10/0x10 [ 682.146742] virtnet_find_vqs+0x1f0/0x370 [ 682.146747] virtnet_probe+0x501/0xcd0 [ 682.146749] ? vp_modern_get_status+0x12/0x20 [ 682.146751] ? get_cap_addr.isra.0+0x10/0xc0 [ 682.146754] virtio_dev_probe+0x1af/0x260 [ 682.146759] really_probe+0x1a5/0x410 Fixes: 3dad568 ("virtio-vdpa: Support interrupt affinity spreading mechanism") Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20230811091539.1359865-1-jasowang@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
frank-w
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2024
commit 667574e upstream. When tries to demote 1G hugetlb folios, a lockdep warning is observed: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- bash/710 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffff8f0a7850 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0x244/0x460 but task is already holding lock: ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&h->resize_lock); lock(&h->resize_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by bash/710: #0: ffff8f118439c3f0 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x64/0xe0 #1: ffff8f11893b9e88 (&of->mutex#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0xf8/0x1d0 #2: ffff8f1183dc4428 (kn->active#98){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x100/0x1d0 #3: ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460 stack backtrace: CPU: 3 PID: 710 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0xa0 __lock_acquire+0x10f2/0x1ca0 lock_acquire+0xbe/0x2d0 __mutex_lock+0x6d/0x400 demote_store+0x244/0x460 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12c/0x1d0 vfs_write+0x380/0x540 ksys_write+0x64/0xe0 do_syscall_64+0xb9/0x1d0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7fa61db14887 RSP: 002b:00007ffc56c48358 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fa61db14887 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055a030050220 RDI: 0000000000000001 RBP: 000055a030050220 R08: 00007fa61dbd1460 R09: 000000007fffffff R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000002 R13: 00007fa61dc1b780 R14: 00007fa61dc17600 R15: 00007fa61dc16a00 </TASK> Lockdep considers this an AA deadlock because the different resize_lock mutexes reside in the same lockdep class, but this is a false positive. Place them in distinct classes to avoid these warnings. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240712031314.2570452-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com Fixes: 8531fc6 ("hugetlb: add hugetlb demote page support") Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> Acked-by: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
frank-w
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2024
commit 667574e upstream. When tries to demote 1G hugetlb folios, a lockdep warning is observed: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- bash/710 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffff8f0a7850 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0x244/0x460 but task is already holding lock: ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&h->resize_lock); lock(&h->resize_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by bash/710: #0: ffff8f118439c3f0 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x64/0xe0 #1: ffff8f11893b9e88 (&of->mutex#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0xf8/0x1d0 #2: ffff8f1183dc4428 (kn->active#98){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x100/0x1d0 #3: ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460 stack backtrace: CPU: 3 PID: 710 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0xa0 __lock_acquire+0x10f2/0x1ca0 lock_acquire+0xbe/0x2d0 __mutex_lock+0x6d/0x400 demote_store+0x244/0x460 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12c/0x1d0 vfs_write+0x380/0x540 ksys_write+0x64/0xe0 do_syscall_64+0xb9/0x1d0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7fa61db14887 RSP: 002b:00007ffc56c48358 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fa61db14887 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055a030050220 RDI: 0000000000000001 RBP: 000055a030050220 R08: 00007fa61dbd1460 R09: 000000007fffffff R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000002 R13: 00007fa61dc1b780 R14: 00007fa61dc17600 R15: 00007fa61dc16a00 </TASK> Lockdep considers this an AA deadlock because the different resize_lock mutexes reside in the same lockdep class, but this is a false positive. Place them in distinct classes to avoid these warnings. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240712031314.2570452-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com Fixes: 8531fc6 ("hugetlb: add hugetlb demote page support") Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> Acked-by: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
frank-w
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2024
commit 667574e upstream. When tries to demote 1G hugetlb folios, a lockdep warning is observed: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- bash/710 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffff8f0a7850 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0x244/0x460 but task is already holding lock: ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&h->resize_lock); lock(&h->resize_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by bash/710: #0: ffff8f118439c3f0 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x64/0xe0 #1: ffff8f11893b9e88 (&of->mutex#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0xf8/0x1d0 #2: ffff8f1183dc4428 (kn->active#98){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x100/0x1d0 #3: ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460 stack backtrace: CPU: 3 PID: 710 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0xa0 __lock_acquire+0x10f2/0x1ca0 lock_acquire+0xbe/0x2d0 __mutex_lock+0x6d/0x400 demote_store+0x244/0x460 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12c/0x1d0 vfs_write+0x380/0x540 ksys_write+0x64/0xe0 do_syscall_64+0xb9/0x1d0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7fa61db14887 RSP: 002b:00007ffc56c48358 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fa61db14887 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055a030050220 RDI: 0000000000000001 RBP: 000055a030050220 R08: 00007fa61dbd1460 R09: 000000007fffffff R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000002 R13: 00007fa61dc1b780 R14: 00007fa61dc17600 R15: 00007fa61dc16a00 </TASK> Lockdep considers this an AA deadlock because the different resize_lock mutexes reside in the same lockdep class, but this is a false positive. Place them in distinct classes to avoid these warnings. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240712031314.2570452-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com Fixes: 8531fc6 ("hugetlb: add hugetlb demote page support") Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> Acked-by: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Lima related dts regulator added.