From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:41636 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754942AbbILRla (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:41:30 -0400 Message-ID: <55F463C3.2040704@roeck-us.net> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 10:41:23 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sudip Mukherjee CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shuah.kh@samsung.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 00/11] 3.10.88-stable review References: <20150911224528.501106420@linuxfoundation.org> <20150912072603.GA28881@sudip-pc> <20150912155545.GG29944@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20150912155545.GG29944@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/12/2015 08:55 AM, 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: >>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.10.88 release. >>> There are 11 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 Sun Sep 13 22:45:08 UTC 2015. >>> Anything received after that time might be too late. >> Compiled and booted on x86_32. No errors in dmesg. >> >> cross_compiled with allmodconfig: >> >> i386 - pass >> x86_64 - pass >> alphacheck - pass >> arm - pass >> cris - failed > > Is this expected? > I don't test this one. >> m68k - pass >> mips - pass >> powerpc - pass >> s390 - failed > > Is this expected? > Yes. >> sparc - pass >> sparc64 - pass >> tile - failed >> tilegx - failed Yes. Looks like it was fixed somewhere between 3.11 and 3.13, though I did not track down the commit. >> xtensa - failed > xtensa:allmodconfig builds for me, using my own toolchain. I see that kind of failure if I build for one endianness, then for the other, without cleaning up in between. Guenter > Are these all new failures? > > thanks, > > greg k-h >