On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 07:46:05AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:

Greg Kroah-Hartman [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 01:22:06AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:

quoted

kernelci.org bot [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

stable-rc boot: 105 boots: 1 failed, 100 passed with 4 offline (v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1)

Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/kernel/v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1/
Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/kernel/v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1/

Tree: stable-rc
Branch: local/linux-4.7.y
Git Describe: v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1
Git Commit: 64e4c0f6d4b12abd1966ac9ad2082a0815a3d0eb
Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
Tested: 32 unique boards, 12 SoC families, 20 builds out of 205

Boot Failure Detected: https://kernelci.org/boot/?v4.7.5-70-g64e4c0f6d4b1&fail

arm:

    multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y:
        at91-sama5d3_xplained: 1 failed lab

This looks like a legit new failure, and the same thing is happening on
stable-rc/linux-4.4.y.

I've asked the lab with this board to have a closer look,

Thanks, I don't see anything obvious in the patch series that would have
affected this board, but given the PROVE_LOCKING option, maybe it was a
more generic change that is causing the issue.

Since the kernelci email report went out, another lab reported a PASS
for this board on the same defconfig, so this particular FAIL is likely
a lab-specific issue, so I wouldn't let this block stable release.

Great, thanks for letting me know, I will now not worry about it :)

greg k-h