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, shuahkh@osg.samsung.com, patches@kernelci.org,
        ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.13 00/27] 4.13.2-stable review
Organization: BayLibre
References: <20170912165308.904472972@linuxfoundation.org>
        <59b8666e.e2a9df0a.378a2.e18c@mx.google.com>
        <20170913010300.GA22427@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:16:26 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20170913010300.GA22427@kroah.com> (Greg Kroah-Hartman's message
        of "Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:03:00 -0700")
Message-ID: <7hingmdz2d.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: 902
Lines: 24

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

> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 03:57:50PM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote:
>> stable-rc/linux-4.13.y boot: 210 boots: 7 failed, 200 passed with 3 conflicts (v4.13.1-28-g0a9a7505477b)
>
> 7 failures here, and 8 for 4.12, are these to be expected?

They are expected in the sense that nobody seems to care about the
defconfigs that are failing, so nobody is looking into the failures.

Since almost all of these failures seem to be related to various
defconfnig + kconfig-fragment builds that nobody is taking the time to
fix, I'm going reduce the set of defconfig that are built for stable
trees to just the in-tree defconfigs.

That should greatly reduce the signal-to-noise for these stable
reports.  We can then add back defconfigs as needed, on the condition
that someone has the time/energy to keep those configs working in stable
trees.

Kevin