[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191230194204.GB1880685@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:42:04 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
patches@...nelci.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 000/434] 5.4.7-stable review
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:08:49PM -0600, Dan Rue wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 06:45:22PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 10:34:37AM -0600, Dan Rue wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 06:20:53PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.7 release.
> > > > There are 434 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.
> > >
> > > Results from Linaro’s test farm.
> > > No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386.
> >
> > Thanks for testing all of these and letting me know.
> >
> > But didn't you add perf build testing to your builds? That should have
> > broken things, so I am guessing not :(
>
> We do build (and run) perf, and it worked for us. Which patch was the
> problem? I can go look at why our config didn't hit the offending
> code/build path.
See the thread from Guenter and from others on the perf patches
themselves in this release for the details.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists