Re: [PATCH 4.7 00/69] 4.7.6-stable review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 07:46:05AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 01:22:06AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> kernelci.org bot <bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> 
> >> > stable-rc boot: 105 boots: 1 failed, 100 passed with 4 offline (v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1)
> >> >
> >> > Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/kernel/v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1/
> >> > Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/kernel/v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1/
> >> >
> >> > Tree: stable-rc
> >> > Branch: local/linux-4.7.y
> >> > Git Describe: v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1
> >> > Git Commit: 64e4c0f6d4b12abd1966ac9ad2082a0815a3d0eb
> >> > Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> >> > Tested: 32 unique boards, 12 SoC families, 20 builds out of 205
> >> >
> >> > Boot Failure Detected: https://kernelci.org/boot/?v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1&fail
> >> >
> >> > arm:
> >> >
> >> >     multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y:
> >> >         at91-sama5d3_xplained: 1 failed lab
> >> 
> >> This looks like a legit new failure, and the same thing is happening on
> >> stable-rc/linux-4.4.y.
> >> 
> >> I've asked the lab with this board to have a closer look,
> >
> > Thanks, I don't see anything obvious in the patch series that would have
> > affected this board, but given the PROVE_LOCKING option, maybe it was a
> > more generic change that is causing the issue.
> 
> Since the kernelci email report went out, another lab reported a PASS
> for this board on the same defconfig, so this particular FAIL is likely
> a lab-specific issue, so I wouldn't let this block stable release.

Great, thanks for letting me know, I will now not worry about it :)

greg k-h