From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on gnuweeb.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,NO_DNS_FOR_FROM,
	URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received: from [192.168.88.254] (unknown [125.160.110.187])
	by gnuweeb.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59E7A80615;
	Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:58:10 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gnuweeb.org;
	s=default; t=1661162291;
	bh=oMyi8uvrW0sfCmsEYodv+13wAlcf5kWlYzz9jKn7sBg=;
	h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=Yhymy2rpl1BR45OeZ6jjUYXSpAF72OtJuKKGQoLGbSUNYCQz8f+1kPLkqz4uwCaBK
	 niweTG2wz2b+zgU/C7Tfei9X7uQSiS9rsmGU6SED4sBY3XJr+n6gLKkfqG4ep0uFyI
	 gw0vNP18IeO5TcV7aCr/qjbCl7D0M3faNq6e1eCG0r3ZGCPKNk0bltcfjsHb7wY3Zl
	 jottMizMV7UM3wjfSXTxkZ81dvDGt14ibNSdYLqofgI2d7xdVb3zVu1RUZvH0WWJ9H
	 kGMJewcg5jstWfqaB88jDIuHW+MGfJqQHdzYD6H+kBOO9lqZsuYemdk8WYMg5jdguK
	 qaOyazmE/OPhg==
Message-ID: <b500b1d9-f98e-40c3-1fc8-f3770a0adc84@gnuweeb.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 16:57:58 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [vrf] 2ef23e860e:
 kernel-selftests.net.fcnal-test.sh.fail
Content-Language: en-US
To: Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@intel.com>,
 GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@vger.gnuweeb.org>
Cc: lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com
References: <20220822065003.GA33158@inn2.lkp.intel.com>
 <532c4311-ada3-05c7-bc63-b5cb2d32ca1a@intel.com>
 <c9451365-e582-3bb0-0180-462d0a4069ed@gnuweeb.org>
 <70e690da-df88-5d78-d25c-b01ce1f3f886@intel.com>
From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
In-Reply-To: <70e690da-df88-5d78-d25c-b01ce1f3f886@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: <gwml.vger.gnuweeb.org>

On 8/22/22 3:09 PM, Yujie Liu wrote:
> Do you suggest that if we find any issue on the branches like "for-5.*-lts", we could also
> run a test on corresponding stable branch? We will consider this step in the future.

Yeah, it's good to test them. Because I park my patches for stable on those
branches. Usually that happens when I got a failed apply report from the
stable team that a patch can't cleanly apply to specific stable tree, so
manual changes needed to backport.

I rarely do it, though, but at least I always wait for build report from the
kernel test robot for those specific branches after pushed some changes :)

-- 
Ammar Faizi