[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7hfuczbfbw.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:41:23 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "kernelci.org bot" <bot@...nelci.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
shuahkh@....samsung.com, patches@...nelci.org,
ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.12 000/106] 4.12.6-stable review
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 01:34:09PM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote:
>> stable-rc/linux-4.12.y boot: 211 boots: 17 failed, 194 passed (v4.12.5-106-g38a3c1c9f248)
>>
>> Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.12.y/kernel/v4.12.5-106-g38a3c1c9f248/
>> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.12.y/kernel/v4.12.5-106-g38a3c1c9f248/
>
> 17 feels like a lot of failures, are these all just broken platforms?
I didn't look too closely because looks like there was another patch
added, and this time through, only 8 failures[1] (out of 524 boots).
I'll try to have a closer look at those today, but a first glance looks
like there aren't any real regressions.
Kevin
[1] https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.12.y/kernel/v4.12.5-107-ge6f7239c338e/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists