From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753244AbdJKQrp (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:47:45 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:38468 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751147AbdJKQrn (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:47:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:47:50 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Tom Gall Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuahkh@osg.samsung.com, patches@kernelci.org, ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk, linux- stable Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/47] 4.4.92-stable review Message-ID: <20171011164750.GA1719@kroah.com> References: <20171010195019.584170396@linuxfoundation.org> <6600AF4A-4D03-4332-988A-7667765FC95E@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6600AF4A-4D03-4332-988A-7667765FC95E@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:12:15AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote: > Let’s try that again with less HTML stupidness …. > > On Oct 11, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Tom Gall wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.92 release. > > There are 47 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > > let me know. > > > > Responses should be made by Thu Oct 12 19:50:01 UTC 2017. > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > > kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.4.92-rc1.gz > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.4.y > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Full test results from Linaro’s test farm for 4.4. > > Note there are some further regressions we’ve seen on x15 (arm) beyond the one I reported > last night and that Sumit then commented on. > > We’ve also moved up to the recently released LTP. Those two sentances could not possibly be related now, right? :) You did test the latest version of LTP on a "known good kernel/system", ahead of time? Are these regressions to be expected? x86 doesn't even look right here: > dell-poweredge-r200 - x86_64 > * boot - 1 pass > * kselftest - 44 pass - 24 known failures 1/3 failure is ok? > * libhugetlbfs - 76 pass - 1 skip > * ltp-cap_bounds-tests - 1 pass > * ltp-commands-tests - 27 pass - 13 skip - 5 known failures (ksh not in test img) > * ltp-containers-tests - 63 pass - 18 fail (these are being looked at looks like setup issues with veth0) > * ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests - 2 pass > * ltp-filecaps-tests - 2 pass > * ltp-fs-tests - 61 pass - 1 skip > * ltp-fs_bind-tests - 2 pass > * ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests - 19 pass > * ltp-fsx-tests - 2 pass > * ltp-hugetlb-tests - 22 pass > * ltp-io-tests - 3 pass > * ltp-ipc-tests - 9 pass > * ltp-math-tests - 11 pass > * ltp-nptl-tests - 2 pass > * ltp-pty-tests - 4 pass > * ltp-sched-tests - 13 pass - 1 skip > * ltp-securebits-tests - 4 pass > * ltp-syscalls-tests - 960 pass - 164 skip - 13 known failures syscalls fail? Why skip so many? thanks, greg k-h