From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f67.google.com ([209.85.220.67]:34961 "EHLO mail-pa0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753066AbbILSMV (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Sep 2015 14:12:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:42:11 +0530 From: Sudip Mukherjee To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Max Filippov , Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , shuah.kh@samsung.com, "stable@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 00/11] 3.10.88-stable review Message-ID: <20150912181211.GA2031@fool> References: <20150911224528.501106420@linuxfoundation.org> <20150912072603.GA28881@sudip-pc> <20150912155545.GG29944@kroah.com> <20150912173655.GA24092@sudip-pc> <55F46630.1090807@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55F46630.1090807@roeck-us.net> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:51:44AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 09/12/2015 10:36 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 07:22:39PM +0300, Max Filippov wrote: > >>On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> wrote: > >>>On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:56:03PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > >>>>On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:48:59PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>>> > >>>>cross_compiled with allmodconfig: > >>... > >>>>xtensa - failed > >>> > >>>Are these all new failures? > >> > >>Build log says > >> > >>/home/travis/local/gcc-4.9.0-nolibc/xtensa-linux/bin/xtensa-linux-objcopy: > >>Unable to change endianness of input file(s) > >>make[2]: *** [arch/xtensa/boot/boot-elf/Image.o] Error 1 > >> > >>which looks like misconfigured toolchain. > >But the same script and same toolchain compiles properly for 4.1.7-rc1, > >3.14.52-rc1 and also works for Linus tree (last tested yesterday > >morning). I will see what has changed between 3.10 and 3.14 so that it > >doesnot work for 3.10 but works for 3.14. > > > > The question here is if this is a new failure in 3.10, not if it has been > fixed in a later kernel version. > > For my part I used to report such persistent failures. However, I find it > useless and even confusing to report "yep, still fails", unless there is > a plan to fix it, so I don't do that anymore. Otherwise it is just a waste > of test resources, and it makes it difficult to understand the test summary. > > If I _do_ report such failures, I track down the cause and the fix, and ask > the branch maintainer to apply the necessary patch(es). I am trying to do the same with linux-next now. And as you suggested in another reply just tried a clean build with 3.10.87 and that also failed. I will find out the fix which caused it to build properly for 3.14 for me. regards sudip