On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 09:42:24PM -0800, kernelci.org bot wrote: > stable-rc boot: 513 boots: 4 failed, 489 passed with 20 offline (v4.9.1-117-ge3bc65e52a08) > > Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/kernel/v4.9.1-117-ge3bc65e52a08/ > Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/kernel/v4.9.1-117-ge3bc65e52a08/ > > Tree: stable-rc > Branch: local/linux-4.9.y > Git Describe: v4.9.1-117-ge3bc65e52a08 > Git Commit: e3bc65e52a086ea9bcc31605737bbf0476f9bcd3 > Git URL: http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > Tested: 88 unique boards, 25 SoC families, 35 builds out of 206 > > Boot Regressions Detected: > > arm: > > multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y: > vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7: > lab-broonie: new failure (last pass: v4.9.1) > > Boot Failures Detected: > > arm: > > multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y > vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7: 1 failed lab > > sunxi_defconfig > sun4i-a10-cubieboard: 1 failed lab > > exynos_defconfig > exynos5422-odroidxu3_rootfs:nfs: 1 failed lab > > arm64: > > defconfig+CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN=y > juno-r2: 1 failed lab Are all of these really "failures"? Some of them seem like they really did boot, but the test system didn't detect it? I don't know what to do with these reports, should I trust them that I broke something, or just ignore them and let someone else dig into them to determine if it's a false-positive or something like that? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html