From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:45618 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752749AbdAJKRS (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:17:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:17:38 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Kevin Hilman Cc: "kernelci.org bot" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuah.kh@samsung.com, patches@kernelci.org, ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/116] 4.9.2-stable review Message-ID: <20170110101738.GA3888@kroah.com> References: <20170106213908.681421800@linuxfoundation.org> <58707fc0.cf3fc20a.aa7e8.1fbd@mx.google.com> <20170107132458.GB29406@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:19:31AM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Greg Kroah-Hartman writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 09:42:24PM -0800, kernelci.org bot wrote: > >> stable-rc boot: 513 boots: 4 failed, 489 passed with 20 offline (v4.9.1-117-ge3bc65e52a08) > >> > >> Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/kernel/v4.9.1-117-ge3bc65e52a08/ > >> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/kernel/v4.9.1-117-ge3bc65e52a08/ > >> > >> Tree: stable-rc > >> Branch: local/linux-4.9.y > >> Git Describe: v4.9.1-117-ge3bc65e52a08 > >> Git Commit: e3bc65e52a086ea9bcc31605737bbf0476f9bcd3 > >> Git URL: http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > >> Tested: 88 unique boards, 25 SoC families, 35 builds out of 206 > >> > >> Boot Regressions Detected: > >> > >> arm: > >> > >> multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y: > >> vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7: > >> lab-broonie: new failure (last pass: v4.9.1) > >> > >> Boot Failures Detected: > >> > >> arm: > >> > >> multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y > >> vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7: 1 failed lab > >> > >> sunxi_defconfig > >> sun4i-a10-cubieboard: 1 failed lab > >> > >> exynos_defconfig > >> exynos5422-odroidxu3_rootfs:nfs: 1 failed lab > >> > >> arm64: > >> > >> defconfig+CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN=y > >> juno-r2: 1 failed lab > > > > Are all of these really "failures"? Some of them seem like they really > > did boot, but the test system didn't detect it? > > > > I don't know what to do with these reports, should I trust them that I > > broke something, or just ignore them and let someone else dig into them > > to determine if it's a false-positive or something like that? > > Until we get these more reliable, you can assume that I'll flag > something that's really a blocker. Ok, thanks for that, it makes my life easier in trying to parse these reports :) greg k-h