Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuah@kernel.org,
        patches@kernelci.org, ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 000/266] 4.4.180-stable review
In-Reply-To: <20190515151307.GA23599@kroah.com>
References: <20190515090722.696531131@linuxfoundation.org> <5cdc2691.1c69fb81.bd8d8.7247@mx.google.com> <20190515151307.GA23599@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 15:47:25 -0700
Message-ID: <7h1s0y9fuq.fsf@baylibre.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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

> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:47:45AM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote:
>> stable-rc/linux-4.4.y boot: 98 boots: 1 failed, 92 passed with 3 offline, 1 untried/unknown, 1 conflict (v4.4.179-267-gbe756dada5b7)
>> 
>> Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.4.y/kernel/v4.4.179-267-gbe756dada5b7/
>> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.4.y/kernel/v4.4.179-267-gbe756dada5b7/
>> 
>> Tree: stable-rc
>> Branch: linux-4.4.y
>> Git Describe: v4.4.179-267-gbe756dada5b7
>> Git Commit: be756dada5b771fe51be37a77ad0bdfba543fdae
>> Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> Tested: 44 unique boards, 21 SoC families, 14 builds out of 190
>> 
>> Boot Regressions Detected:
>> 
>> arm:
>> 
>>     omap2plus_defconfig:
>>         gcc-8:
>>           omap4-panda:
>>               lab-baylibre: new failure (last pass: v4.4.179-254-gce69be0d452a)
>
> Odd, is this specific to this release?

No, looks like a lab-specific hiccup.

A little bit further down in the original report (I know, not a useful
place for it) was this:

> Conflicting Boot Failure Detected: (These likely are not failures as other labs are reporting PASS. Needs review.)
>  
> arm:
>     omap2plus_defconfig:
> 	omap4-panda:
> 	    lab-baylibre: FAIL (gcc-8)
>	    lab-baylibre-seattle: PASS (gcc-8)

which means the same board passed in one lab, but not the other,
suggesting something.

This is a bug in our email reports.  Regressions should not be reported
whene there are conflicting results from labs.

Kevin