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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.2 000/413] 5.2.3-stable review
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.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
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>
 <20190725162053.GD18612@linux.intel.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <7bc207e0-0812-e41a-bfd5-e3fbfd43f242@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:30:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190725162053.GD18612@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 25/07/19 18:20, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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?

Yes.  I'm happy to gather ideas on how to avoid this (i.e. 1) if a
submodule would be useful; 2) where to stick it).

Paolo