From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932615AbcFARjA (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:39:00 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]:33913 "EHLO mail-pf0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754645AbcFARi7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:38:59 -0400 From: Kevin Hilman To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: "kernelci.org bot" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuah.kh@samsung.com, patches@kernelci.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.14 00/20] 3.14.71-stable review Organization: BayLibre References: <20160530204934.262210466@linuxfoundation.org> <574e993f.92981c0a.59c4b.ffff8936@mx.google.com> <20160601161719.GE9144@kroah.com> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:38:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160601161719.GE9144@kroah.com> (Greg Kroah-Hartman's message of "Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:17:19 -0700") Message-ID: <7hpos0erm6.fsf@baylibre.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Greg Kroah-Hartman writes: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:13:51AM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote: >> stable-queue boot: 114 boots: 0 failed, 113 passed with 1 offline (v3.14.70-20-gd418e2694f52) >> >> Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-queue/kernel/v3.14.70-20-gd418e2694f52/ >> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-queue/kernel/v3.14.70-20-gd418e2694f52/ >> >> Tree: stable-queue >> Branch: local/linux-3.14.y.queue >> Git Describe: v3.14.70-20-gd418e2694f52 >> Git Commit: d418e2694f52920287328d0fc839ed59c8a47280 >> Git URL: git://server.roeck-us.net/git/linux-stable.git >> Tested: 39 unique boards, 12 SoC families, 21 builds out of 129 >> >> Offline Platforms: >> >> arm: >> >> multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_EFI=y: >> omap3-overo-storm-tobi: 1 offline lab > > I'll assume this means all is good :) Yes. > And really, I don't care is something is "offline", there's not much any > of us can do about it, right? That's correct. Only actual failures should concern you. The offline board info is there for the lab owners. Kevin