Re: [PATCH 3.18 00/21] 3.18.113-stable review
From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Thu Jun 14 2018 - 11:51:37 EST
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 05:09:11PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:08:12PM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote:
> >> stable-rc/linux-3.18.y boot: 52 boots: 28 failed, 18 passed with 1 offline, 5 conflicts (v3.18.112-22-gb0582263e3c9)
> >> Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-3.18.y/kernel/v3.18.112-22-gb0582263e3c9/
> >> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-3.18.y/kernel/v3.18.112-22-gb0582263e3c9/
> >> Tree: stable-rc
> >> Branch: linux-3.18.y
> >> Git Describe: v3.18.112-22-gb0582263e3c9
> >> Git Commit: b0582263e3c9810fd887ca92d19cb9ff30a4d9f6
> >> Git URL: http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> >> Tested: 24 unique boards, 12 SoC families, 13 builds out of 183
> > That is a lot of new failures, did the whole lab fail, or is this really
> > a problem in v3.18.112 here?
> Whole lab failure (more precisely, lab operator failure) ;)
> gak, I updated the rootfs images to the latest buildroot, which forced
> me to upgrade the kernel headers used to build the rootfs from v3.10 to
> v4.4. So I guess it's no surprise that every single board panic'd as
> soon as it hit userspace.
I build my root file systems with buildroot, and had a similar problem. My fix
was to patch buildroot to let me use older linux headers.
> I downgraded the rootfs, and re-ran all those boot tests, and now things
> are 100% passing in my lab.
> Sorry for the noise,