On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:52:52PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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. OK, so it seems the following two tests failed for them[0]: > ❌ Networking socket: fuzz [9] > ❌ Networking sctp-auth: sockopts test [10] fuzz[1] seems to be a redhat test that was added to tests-beaker on May 20th this year. Similarly, sockopts[2] was added on May 7th. We don't run tests-beaker. Maybe we should? Major is coming to Linaro Connect in a few weeks to talk about CKI[3]. Topics such as test coverage and test suites are on our agenda to discuss. Hope that helps, Dan [0] https://lore.kernel.org/stable/291770ce-273a-68aa-a4a2-7655cbea2bcc@xxxxxxxx [1] https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/commit/a454fdeaada71f7f193ae00e505621bf4a8ed8c6 [2] https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/commit/4ebc85dae5042cc2b70c98a868f3b3501eec1e08 [3] https://linaroconnectsandiego.sched.com/event/Suco/san19-416-transforming-kernel-developer-workflows-with-cicd > > thanks, > > greg k-h -- Linaro - Kernel Validation
