On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 07:46:05AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> writes: > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 01:22:06AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> kernelci.org bot <b...@kernelci.org> writes: > >> > >> > stable-rc boot: 105 boots: 1 failed, 100 passed with 4 offline > >> > (v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1) > >> > > >> > Full Boot Summary: > >> > https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/kernel/v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1/ > >> > Full Build Summary: > >> > https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/kernel/v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1/ > >> > > >> > Tree: stable-rc > >> > Branch: local/linux-4.7.y > >> > Git Describe: v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1 > >> > Git Commit: 64e4c0f6d4b12abd1966ac9ad2082a0815a3d0eb > >> > Git URL: > >> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > >> > Tested: 32 unique boards, 12 SoC families, 20 builds out of 205 > >> > > >> > Boot Failure Detected: > >> > https://kernelci.org/boot/?v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1&fail > >> > > >> > arm: > >> > > >> > multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y: > >> > at91-sama5d3_xplained: 1 failed lab > >> > >> This looks like a legit new failure, and the same thing is happening on > >> stable-rc/linux-4.4.y. > >> > >> I've asked the lab with this board to have a closer look, > > > > Thanks, I don't see anything obvious in the patch series that would have > > affected this board, but given the PROVE_LOCKING option, maybe it was a > > more generic change that is causing the issue. > > Since the kernelci email report went out, another lab reported a PASS > for this board on the same defconfig, so this particular FAIL is likely > a lab-specific issue, so I wouldn't let this block stable release.
Great, thanks for letting me know, I will now not worry about it :) greg k-h
