Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/46] 4.4.94-stable review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:54:38AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> fcntl36 and raw_skew weâll looking into.
> >>
> >>  ltp-timers-tests:
> >>    * leapsec_timer
> >>    * runltp_timers
> >>
> >>    * test src: git://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp.git
> >>
> >> This one has been working and just failed with this RC cycle. Itâs only failing on 32 bit arm.
> >>
> >> Needs to be looked into.
> >
> > When you say "Needs to be looked into", does that mean that you are
> > pointing this out for someone else to do this (i.e. help, someone look
> > at this!), or are you going to be working to figure it out?
> 
> Help is always great. We've got it covered.
> 
> One of the team that works on this board has been looking into it.
> 
> As of this second, and looking within the context of 4.4, 4.9 and mainline data
> what we're looking at is intermitted failures involving raw_skew from
> kselftest and leapsec_timer
> from ltp_timers that is present across all those 3 kernel version and
> their respective streams.
> (by stream I mean FOO, FOO-rc1, FOO+1, FOO+1-rc1, etc)
> 
> As such we can rule these out detecting a regression in the new RC
> patches. Likely it's board
> specific.

Side note, your use of \n is still really odd.  I strongly recommend
getting a decent email client, or an sane editor that knows what to do
here....

Anyway, if you have board-specific issues, that are not -rc issues, can
you say so really obviously so I don't worry that I broke something?
Otherwise it's pretty annoying, as your email implies that I did
something wrong, and only a few emails in the thread later will it come
out that this is flaky hardware/tests so there's nothing to worry about.

The kernel.ci reports are a bit like this, I glance at them and only
worry if the reporter tells me to worry.  Should I do the same thing
here as well?  When can these tests/reports start to be trusted?

thanks,

greg k-h