From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux@roeck-us.net, shuah.kh@samsung.com, patches@kernelci.org,
        ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.8 00/37] 4.8.2-stable review
Organization: BayLibre
References: <20161014122549.411962735@linuxfoundation.org>
        <58013af0.6106c30a.958bb.adf8@mx.google.com>
        <20161015113834.GA12279@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:43:55 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20161015113834.GA12279@kroah.com> (Greg Kroah-Hartman's message
        of "Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:38:34 +0200")
Message-ID: <7hfunvc4dw.fsf@baylibre.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 606
Lines: 17

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 01:07:12PM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote:
>> stable-rc boot: 8 boots: 0 failed, 4 passed with 4 offline (v4.8.1-38-g9ccca26a1585)
>
> That's not many boots, what went wrong here?  What happened to the 100+
> that 4.7 was getting?

Hmm, looks like there were no ARM builds, which is what most of the boot
platforms are.  Not sure yet what went wrong there.

But v4.8.2 itself is looking fine, with three known failures that are
under investigation:

   https://kernelci.org/job/stable-rc/branch/local:linux-4.8.y/
   
Kevin