Re: [PATCH 3.18 00/21] 3.18.113-stable review

[Kevin Hilman]

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 downgraded the rootfs, and re-ran all those boot tests, and now things
are 100% passing in my lab.

Sorry for the noise,

Kevin