lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.4 00/31] 4.4.88-stable review
Date
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 03:57:50PM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote:
>> stable-rc/linux-4.4.y boot: 450 boots: 1 failed, 446 passed with 3 offline (v4.4.87-32-gb8c205d85576)
>>
>> Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.4.y/kernel/v4.4.87-32-gb8c205d85576/
>> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.4.y/kernel/v4.4.87-32-gb8c205d85576/
>>
>> Tree: stable-rc
>> Branch: linux-4.4.y
>> Git Describe: v4.4.87-32-gb8c205d85576
>> Git Commit: b8c205d855764e3db05a17ab4d03a19a5d609bdd
>> Git URL: http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> Tested: 68 unique boards, 21 SoC families, 34 builds out of 203
>>
>> Boot Regressions Detected:
>>
>> arm:
>>
>> multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y:
>> qcom-apq8064-cm-qs600:
>> lab-baylibre-seattle: new failure (last pass: v4.4.85-16-gcd99a4f3f43b)
>
> Is this a real failure?

I tried to boot this a few more times, and it's still failing so it
apprears it's a new regression.

Added qcom maintainenrs to Cc to see if they have any ideas.

These failures with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING seem to be more often related
to bootloader issues with kernel size than actual CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING,
so I'm note exactly sure which is which here.

Kevin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-13 23:58    [W:0.146 / U:3.964 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site