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;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 09:20:53 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>,
        wanpengli@tencent.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        patches@kernelci.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
        linux- stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, jmattson@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.2 000/413] 5.2.3-stable review
Message-ID: <20190725162053.GD18612@linux.intel.com>
References: <20190724191735.096702571@linuxfoundation.org>
 <CADYN=9+WLxhmqX3JNL_s-kWSN97G=8WhD=TF=uAuKecJnKcj_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190725113437.GA27429@kroah.com>
 <230a5b34-d23e-8318-0b1f-d23ada7318e0@redhat.com>
 <CA+G9fYsWdmboyquZ=Bs3tkTwRFTzd1yuL0_EVpHOecNi4E_stA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190725160939.GC18612@linux.intel.com>
 <33f1cfaa-525d-996a-4977-fda32dc368ee@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <33f1cfaa-525d-996a-4977-fda32dc368ee@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:10:37PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 25/07/19 18:09, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> This investigation confirms it is a new test code failure on stable-rc 5.2.3
> > No, it only confirms that kvm-unit-tests/master fails on 5.2.*.  To confirm
> > a new failure in 5.2.3 you would need to show a test that passes on 5.2.2
> > and fails on 5.2.3.
> 
> I think he meant "a failure in new test code". :)

Ah, that does appear to be the case.  So just to be clear, we're good, right?