On 15 November 2017 at 08:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 It's readahead02 0 TINFO : creating test file of size: 67108864 readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) readahead02 0 TINFO : max ra estimate: 262144 readahead02 0 TINFO : readahead calls made: 256 readahead02 1 TPASS : offset is still at 0 as expected readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) took: 951656 usec readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) took: 921704 usec readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) read: 67108864 bytes readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) read: 51257344 bytes readahead02 2 TPASS : readahead saved some I/O readahead02 0 TINFO : cache can hold at least: 86180 kB readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) used cache: 65308 kB readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) used cache: 15332 kB readahead02 0 TWARN : readahead02.c:351: using less cache than expected Source of the test: https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/20170929/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c#L351 It's the first time this test failed since we started running it. I'll ask Naresh to look into it. > > 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? Do you mean the tests were patched or the kernel code that was exercised? If it's the former, it won't have effect as we're using the kselftests sources from 4.13 milosz