lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.9 000/104] 4.9.54-stable review
Hi Greg,

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 11:56:17AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 2017, at 3:50 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.54 release.
>> > There are 104 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>> > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>> > let me know.
>> >
>> > Responses should be made by Sun Oct 8 08:37:55 UTC 2017.
>> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
>> >
>> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>> > kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.9.54-rc1.gz
>> > or in the git tree and branch at:
>> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.9.y
>> > and the diffstat can be found below.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > greg k-h
>>
>> From Linaro’s validation farm we have the following test results for this 4.9.54-rc1. TI's 32 bit arm board the X15 is a new addition. Also this time around more of LTP is being run. There is triage to do and you’ll notice that I’m differentiating between ‘known failures’ and ‘failures’ in the data below. The later obviously will get looked at so we can graduate failures to known failures/fixes and improve finding regressions. (Anyone want to help?) In summary I wouldn’t hold up 4.9.54 based on the failures in the new data below. Given it’s a Sat, the Mrs has plans, I’ve no time to do further digging until later.
>
> /me hands Tom some '\n' characters...
>
> :)

w00t!

>> kernel: 4.9.54-rc1
>> git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> git branch: linux-4.9.y
>> git commit: 1852eae92c460813692808234da35d142a405ab7
>> git describe: v4.9.53
>> Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.53

>>
>> No regressions (compared to build v4.9.52-65-gaceea42c68d9)
>
> How did your arm64 test build? There was a build regression in the -rc1
> release, are you sure you actually ran the correct image?

So the header in that report was wrong. That's a c/n/p error on my
part. I was in a rush to get you data before I was going to be gone
for the day on Sat and wanting to get what we had into your hands
before the Sunday deadline.

The test results was for the RC as of commit
0e59436504287cddb9663857ae69c100b55f5e85

If you want to see the 'ugly' raw data it's all here :
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.53-105-g0e5943650428/

> Thanks for testing this, finding out the root of these problems this
> week would be great.

We are on it.

> greg k-h

--
Regards,
Tom

Director, Linaro Mobile Group
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
irc: tgall_foo | skype : tom_gall

"Where's the kaboom!? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering
kaboom!" Marvin Martian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-09 22:38    [W:0.114 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site