[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14a9e17b-40a3-c0c6-549d-60d10a6c876a@roeck-us.net>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 06:18:00 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"kernelci.org bot" <bot@...nelci.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuahkh@....samsung.com,
patches@...nelci.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 000/103] 4.4.70-stable review
On 05/24/2017 05:58 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 05:47:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 05/24/2017 12:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
>>> 54 passed? I had a bug here such that all x86 builds were crashing, in
>>> the core tty layer, which seems odd that anything would be able to boot
>>> with this tree...
>
>> Final qemu test result was
>> total: 115 pass: 89 fail: 26
>> with only the x86 and x86_64 images crashing, so this isn't entirely surprising,
>> assuming kernelci does not (yet) run any x86/x86_64 qemu tests.
>
> Not qemu but it has some physical x86 tests like:
>
> https://storage.kernelci.org/stable-rc/linux-4.4.y/v4.4.69-104-g2ebff3b7590b/x86/x86_64_defconfig/lab-collabora/boot-minnowboard-max.html
>
> which seem to have managed to boot somehow. It's a minnowboard with no
> video and it's booting to a ramdisk, I don't know if either of those
> helped avoid the issue.
>
Either that or it is related to the kernel configuration (which, in my case,
was picked from an old yocto version).
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists