On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:47:18AM -0500, Dan Rue wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:16:08PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:30:09AM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 13:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.2.11 release. > > > > There are 162 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 Thu 29 Aug 2019 07:25:02 AM UTC. > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > > > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.2.11-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-5.2.y > > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > Results from Linaro’s test farm. > > > No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386. > > > > Thanks for testing all of these and letting us know. > > > > Also, how did you all not catch the things that the redhat ci system was > > catching that caused us to add another networking aptch? > > Hi Greg - > > I'll follow up with them off list. That said, I expect different CI > setups to find different issues - that's the point, after all. It would > be bad if we all ran the exact same things, and found the exact same > things, because then we'd also miss the exact same things. In the macro > sense, there is a lot to test, and I would rather see CI teams go after > areas that are weak, rather than areas that are well covered. I totally agree, but here we actually have a known failure (for once!) so it would be nice to see why the very large test suite that you all run missed this. thanks, greg k-h
