Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 09:19 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 11.05.15 at 10:12, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On 11/05/2015 09:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 09.05.15 at 20:57, <osstest@xenbits.xen.org> wrote:
> >>> flight 53884 xen-unstable real [real]
> >>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/53884/ 
> >>>
> >>> Regressions :-(
> >>>
> >>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> >>> including tests which could not be run:
> >>>  build-amd64-xsm               5 xen-build                 fail REGR. vs. 50405
> >> This is due to e5786bae04 ("x86/pvh: use a custom IO bitmap for
> >> PVH hardware domains"). Having requested th addition during
> >> review I of course took it for granted that you build tested your
> >> change. As dealing with this imo also means moving the code
> >> addition into the already existing (or a new) CONFIG_X86 block
> >> (along with moving the declaration to a more suitable header), I
> >> think a fixup patch would not be the right way to deal with this,
> >> and hence I think I'm going to revert that change for the time
> >> being.
> > 
> > Given this reversion (and confirmation that the build is fixed), would a
> > force push be justified?  We are now a full month behind, with other 
> > OSSTest issues still outstanding.
> 
> While it'd be really nice to do so, the flight here didn't test the tip of
> staging (onto which I'll push the revert in a few minutes), so a force
> push may be a little difficult to arrange.

FWIW flight 54309 did test that.

> I'm also afraid that doing so
> would yield the XSM build failure an allowable one going forward.

I think the proposal was to include the revert in the force push.

> Otoh, considering that we got two almost-pushes recently, I'm quite
> hopeful that we'll get a real push pretty soon.

I would expect so, but I think we should kill in progress flight 55228
as soon as you've pushed the revert.

Ian.