Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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