From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:34111 "EHLO mail-pg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S939417AbdAISTd (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:19:33 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 14so32175417pgg.1 for ; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 10:19:33 -0800 (PST) From: Kevin Hilman To: Greg Kroah-Hartman 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 References: <20170106213908.681421800@linuxfoundation.org> <58707fc0.cf3fc20a.aa7e8.1fbd@mx.google.com> <20170107132458.GB29406@kroah.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 10:19:31 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20170107132458.GB29406@kroah.com> (Greg Kroah-Hartman's message of "Sat, 7 Jan 2017 14:24:58 +0100") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. Only the exynos5422-odroidxu3 failure is a true failure which is also happendin in mainline. It's been reported and fixed. The others are silly lab/hardware issues that are hard to get stabilized. e.g. QEMU taking a really long time to boot CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y kernels, flaky USB-UART cables etc. Kevin