Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752120AbdFPXzz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 16 Jun 2017 19:55:55 -0400
Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:29888 "EHLO mga06.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750927AbdFPXzx (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 16 Jun 2017 19:55:53 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,348,1493708400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="981866506"
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 07:55:48 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, shuah@kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Martin Fuzzey <mfuzzey@parkeon.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures
Message-ID: <20170616235548.3uiqrhnrjrfw4gx3@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
References: <CAO_48GFNXyqTDN85y8FKLV3wj19JJ28sWXuX4Vex3LVzaxzGCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170616164651.GA21846@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170616164651.GA21846@wotan.suse.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161104 (1.7.1)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 860
Lines: 21

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:46:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>Kees, please review 47e0bbb7fa98 below.
>Brian, please review be4a1326d12c below.
>
>On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:26:53PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
>> Hello Greg, Shuah,
>>
>> While testing 4.4.y and 4.9.y LTS kernels with latest kselftest,
>
>To be clear it seems like you are taking the latest upstream ksefltest and run
>it against older stable kernels. Furthermore you seem to only run the shell
>script tests but are using older kselftests drivers? Is this all correct?
>Otherwise it is unclear how you are running into the issues below.
>
>Does 0-day so the same? I thought 0-day takes just the kselftest from each tree
>submitted. That *seemed* to me like the way it was designed. Shuah ?

Yes in 0-day, we run the kselftest code corresponding to the current kernel.

Thanks,
Fengguang