On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 03:24:52PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote: > kernelci.org bot <b...@kernelci.org> writes: > > > stable-rc boot: 541 boots: 6 failed, 500 passed with 34 offline, 1 conflict > > (v4.10.1-168-gcdc1f9d24aac) > > > > Full Boot Summary: > > https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/kernel/v4.10.1-168-gcdc1f9d24aac/ > > Full Build Summary: > > https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/kernel/v4.10.1-168-gcdc1f9d24aac/ > > > > Tree: stable-rc > > Branch: local/linux-4.10.y > > Git Describe: v4.10.1-168-gcdc1f9d24aac > > Git Commit: cdc1f9d24aac385a7fe4611d7b42f51e20f49cdb > > Git URL: > > http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > > Tested: 101 unique boards, 25 SoC families, 30 builds out of 204 > > > > Boot Regressions Detected: > > > > arm: > > > > multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y: > > am335x-pepper: > > lab-baylibre-seattle: new failure (last pass: > > v4.10-21-gd23a9821d397) > > This one is a new regression, and a first attempt at bisect was > inconclusive. > > > Boot Failures Detected: > > > > arm64: > > > > defconfig+CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE=y > > alpine-v2-evp: 1 failed lab > > This one appears to be a new board in the Free Electrons lab, which > doesn't have a history of passing. > > Quentin, Antoine: blacklist or fix? > > > apm-mustang: 1 failed lab > > juno: 1 failed lab > > These aren't new and have to do with broken boot firmware/UEFI that > cannot cope with bigger kernels. The folks in the Linaro Cambridge lab > are looking into upgrading the firmware. > > > arm: > > qcom_defconfig > > qcom-apq8064-cm-qs600: 1 failed lab > > qcom-apq8064-ifc6410: 1 failed lab > > These also exist in v4.10 mainline and have been reported to qcom > maintainer Andy Gross (cc'd).
Thanks for the analysis of all of these, much appreciated. greg k-h
