lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.4 00/56] 4.4.98-stable review
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:31:18PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.98 release.
> > There are 56 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 Wed Nov 15 12:55:32 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-4.4.98-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-4.4.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> >
>
> Results from Linaro’s test farm. One regression detected on x86. We’re doing some re-runs to see if it’s a solid failure or intermittent. It is however a testcase which hasn’t failed in the past. Also as per usual the HiKey results are reported separate because the platform support isn’t in tree.

I thought I gave you enough \n in the past, did you use all of them up? :(

Anyway, what is the new x86 failure?

Is it this:

> * ltp-syscalls-tests - skip: 164, fail: 4, pass: 957

If so, any pointers to the specific log messages, and which tests are
failing? Digging through the web site isn't the easiest...

And kselftests should have gotten less failures this time around, given
that some of them were patched in this -rc, why didn't that number go
down?

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-15 10:00    [W:0.172 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site