From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 09:29:43 +0100 Message-ID: <1431332983.2660.553.camel@citrix.com> References: <55507FB50200007800078C01@mail.emea.novell.com> <5550646D.1010502@citrix.com> <555082200200007800078C1C@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Yrj5w-0007HB-2Y for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 11 May 2015 08:29:48 +0000 In-Reply-To: <555082200200007800078C1C@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel , Roger Pau Monne List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 09:19 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 11.05.15 at 10:12, wrote: > > On 11/05/2015 09:08, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> On 09.05.15 at 20:57, 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.