On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:54:38AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> fcntl36 and raw_skew we’ll looking into. > >> > >> ltp-timers-tests: > >> * leapsec_timer > >> * runltp_timers > >> > >> * test src: git://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp.git > >> > >> This one has been working and just failed with this RC cycle. It’s only failing on 32 bit arm. > >> > >> Needs to be looked into. > > > > When you say "Needs to be looked into", does that mean that you are > > pointing this out for someone else to do this (i.e. help, someone look > > at this!), or are you going to be working to figure it out? > > Help is always great. We've got it covered. > > One of the team that works on this board has been looking into it. > > As of this second, and looking within the context of 4.4, 4.9 and mainline data > what we're looking at is intermitted failures involving raw_skew from > kselftest and leapsec_timer > from ltp_timers that is present across all those 3 kernel version and > their respective streams. > (by stream I mean FOO, FOO-rc1, FOO+1, FOO+1-rc1, etc) > > As such we can rule these out detecting a regression in the new RC > patches. Likely it's board > specific. Side note, your use of \n is still really odd. I strongly recommend getting a decent email client, or an sane editor that knows what to do here.... Anyway, if you have board-specific issues, that are not -rc issues, can you say so really obviously so I don't worry that I broke something? Otherwise it's pretty annoying, as your email implies that I did something wrong, and only a few emails in the thread later will it come out that this is flaky hardware/tests so there's nothing to worry about. The kernel.ci reports are a bit like this, I glance at them and only worry if the reporter tells me to worry. Should I do the same thing here as well? When can these tests/reports start to be trusted? thanks, greg k-h