Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/116] 4.9.2-stable review

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Sat Jan 07 2017 - 08:24:52 EST


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?

thanks,

greg k-h