* [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
@ 2015-05-09 18:57 osstest service user
2015-05-11 8:08 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: osstest service user @ 2015-05-09 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: ian.jackson
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10520 bytes --]
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
Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-amd64 15 guest-localmigrate.2 fail like 50405
test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-i386 13 guest-localmigrate fail like 50405
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-amd64-amd64-xl-xsm 1 build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 1 build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-libvirt-xsm 1 build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-i386-libvirt-xsm 1 build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-i386-xl-xsm 1 build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 1 build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 1 build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 1 build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pvh-intel 11 guest-start fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-xsm 6 xen-boot fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pvh-amd 11 guest-start fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-libvirt 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-xsm 6 xen-boot fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-libvirt 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 16 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 16 guest-stop fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-sedf-pin 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-cubietruck 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-sedf 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-credit2 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3-vcpus1 16 guest-stop fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 16 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 16 guest-stop fail never pass
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt 12 migrate-support-check fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 16 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 16 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 16 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 16 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 16 guest-stop fail never pass
version targeted for testing:
xen 266fddd0774040096739bf225267f885cfb6b675
baseline version:
xen 123c7793797502b222300eb710cd3873dcca41ee
------------------------------------------------------------
People who touched revisions under test:
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
Chen Baozi <baozich@gmail.com>
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>
Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
Emil Condrea <emilcondrea@gmail.com>
Eugene Korenevsky <ekorenevsky@gmail.com>
Giuseppe Mazzotta <g.mazzotta@iragan.com>
Gustau Perez <gustau.perez@gmail.com>
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Ian Campbell <ian.cmapbell@citrix.com>
Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com>
Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Kai Huang <kai.huang@linux.intel.com>
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Liang Li <liang.z.li@intel.com>
Linda Jacobson <lindaj@jma3.com>
Nathan Studer <nate.studer@gmail.com>
Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>
Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <pranavkumar@linaro.org>
Rafał Wojdyła <omeg@invisiblethingslab.com>
Robert VanVossen <robert.vanvossen@dornerworks.com>
Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@citrix.com>
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>
Tamas K Lengyel <tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de>
Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
jobs:
build-amd64-xsm fail
build-armhf-xsm pass
build-i386-xsm pass
build-amd64 pass
build-armhf pass
build-i386 pass
build-amd64-libvirt pass
build-armhf-libvirt pass
build-i386-libvirt pass
build-amd64-oldkern pass
build-i386-oldkern pass
build-amd64-pvops pass
build-armhf-pvops pass
build-i386-pvops pass
build-amd64-rumpuserxen pass
build-i386-rumpuserxen pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl pass
test-amd64-i386-xl pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64-xsm blocked
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64-xsm blocked
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm blocked
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm blocked
test-amd64-amd64-libvirt-xsm blocked
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-xsm fail
test-amd64-i386-libvirt-xsm blocked
test-amd64-amd64-xl-xsm blocked
test-armhf-armhf-xl-xsm fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-xsm blocked
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pvh-amd fail
test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-amd pass
test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64 pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64 pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64 pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64 pass
test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-amd64 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64 pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64 pass
test-amd64-amd64-rumpuserxen-amd64 pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 fail
test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-credit2 pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-credit2 pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-cubietruck pass
test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-i386 fail
test-amd64-i386-rumpuserxen-i386 pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pvh-intel fail
test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-intel pass
test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel pass
test-amd64-amd64-libvirt pass
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt pass
test-amd64-i386-libvirt pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-multivcpu pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu pass
test-amd64-amd64-pair pass
test-amd64-i386-pair pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf-pin pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-sedf-pin pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl-sedf pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3-vcpus1 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 fail
------------------------------------------------------------
sg-report-flight on osstest.test-lab.xenproject.org
logs: /home/osstest/pub/logs
images: /home/osstest/pub/images
Logs, config files, etc. are available at
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs
Test harness code can be found at
http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb?p=osstest.git;a=summary
Not pushing.
(No revision log; it would be 2155 lines long.)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-09 18:57 [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL osstest service user
@ 2015-05-11 8:08 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 8:12 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-05-11 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roger Pau Monne; +Cc: xen-devel, ian.jackson
>>> 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.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 8:08 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-05-11 8:12 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-05-11 8:19 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 8:28 ` Ian Campbell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2015-05-11 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, Roger Pau Monne
Cc: xen-devel, ian.jackson, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com
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.
~Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 8:12 ` Andrew Cooper
@ 2015-05-11 8:19 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 8:29 ` Ian Campbell
2015-05-11 8:32 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 8:28 ` Ian Campbell
1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-05-11 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper, Roger Pau Monne
Cc: xen-devel, ian.jackson, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com
>>> 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. I'm also afraid that doing so
would yield the XSM build failure an allowable one going forward.
Otoh, considering that we got two almost-pushes recently, I'm quite
hopeful that we'll get a real push pretty soon.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 8:19 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-05-11 8:29 ` Ian Campbell
2015-05-11 8:44 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 8:32 ` Jan Beulich
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2015-05-11 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: Andrew Cooper, ian.jackson, xen-devel, Roger Pau Monne
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 8:29 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2015-05-11 8:44 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-05-11 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Campbell; +Cc: Andrew Cooper, ian.jackson, xen-devel, Roger Pau Monne
>>> On 11.05.15 at 10:29, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 09:19 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> 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.
Which I've now done.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 8:19 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 8:29 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2015-05-11 8:32 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 9:05 ` Ian Campbell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-05-11 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper, Julien Grall
Cc: xen-devel, ian.jackson, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, Roger Pau Monne
>>> On 11.05.15 at 10:19, <JBeulich@suse.com> 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. I'm also afraid that doing so
> would yield the XSM build failure an allowable one going forward.
> Otoh, considering that we got two almost-pushes recently, I'm quite
> hopeful that we'll get a real push pretty soon.
And sadly 6ea9f0481e ("xen: guestcopy: Provide an helper to
safely copy string from guest") breaks the x86 XSM build too (due
to type issues with the compat mode layer of flask's hypercall
handling). Reverting that one would be more cumbersome (as I
suppose subsequent changes depend on it), but I very much
hope that you, Julien, will provide a timely fix for this.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 8:32 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-05-11 9:05 ` Ian Campbell
2015-05-11 9:38 ` Julien Grall
2015-05-11 10:50 ` Ian Campbell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2015-05-11 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich
Cc: Andrew Cooper, Julien Grall, ian.jackson, xen-devel,
Roger Pau Monne
On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 09:32 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > 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. I'm also afraid that doing so
> > would yield the XSM build failure an allowable one going forward.
> > Otoh, considering that we got two almost-pushes recently, I'm quite
> > hopeful that we'll get a real push pretty soon.
>
> And sadly 6ea9f0481e ("xen: guestcopy: Provide an helper to
> safely copy string from guest") breaks the x86 XSM build too (due
> to type issues with the compat mode layer of flask's hypercall
> handling). Reverting that one would be more cumbersome (as I
> suppose subsequent changes depend on it), but I very much
> hope that you, Julien, will provide a timely fix for this.
Yes, please.
There's no point my killing 55228 until then.
Perhaps I should enable XSM for my precommit build test, I don't want to
do both (life's too short) but building XSM is more likely to be
forgotten by contributors I think.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 9:05 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2015-05-11 9:38 ` Julien Grall
2015-05-11 10:50 ` Ian Campbell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Julien Grall @ 2015-05-11 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Campbell, Jan Beulich
Cc: Andrew Cooper, Julien Grall, ian.jackson, Roger Pau Monne,
xen-devel
Hi,
On 11/05/15 10:05, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 09:32 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>>> 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. I'm also afraid that doing so
>>> would yield the XSM build failure an allowable one going forward.
>>> Otoh, considering that we got two almost-pushes recently, I'm quite
>>> hopeful that we'll get a real push pretty soon.
>>
>> And sadly 6ea9f0481e ("xen: guestcopy: Provide an helper to
>> safely copy string from guest") breaks the x86 XSM build too (due
>> to type issues with the compat mode layer of flask's hypercall
>> handling). Reverting that one would be more cumbersome (as I
>> suppose subsequent changes depend on it), but I very much
>> hope that you, Julien, will provide a timely fix for this.
>
> Yes, please.
>
> There's no point my killing 55228 until then.
>
> Perhaps I should enable XSM for my precommit build test, I don't want to
> do both (life's too short) but building XSM is more likely to be
> forgotten by contributors I think.
Sorry for the breakage, I did test XSM but only with ARM build but I
forgot to do it for x86.
I will send a fix today.
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 9:05 ` Ian Campbell
2015-05-11 9:38 ` Julien Grall
@ 2015-05-11 10:50 ` Ian Campbell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2015-05-11 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich
Cc: Andrew Cooper, Julien Grall, ian.jackson, Roger Pau Monne,
xen-devel
On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 10:05 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 09:32 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> > > 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. I'm also afraid that doing so
> > > would yield the XSM build failure an allowable one going forward.
> > > Otoh, considering that we got two almost-pushes recently, I'm quite
> > > hopeful that we'll get a real push pretty soon.
> >
> > And sadly 6ea9f0481e ("xen: guestcopy: Provide an helper to
> > safely copy string from guest") breaks the x86 XSM build too (due
> > to type issues with the compat mode layer of flask's hypercall
> > handling). Reverting that one would be more cumbersome (as I
> > suppose subsequent changes depend on it), but I very much
> > hope that you, Julien, will provide a timely fix for this.
>
> Yes, please.
>
> There's no point my killing 55228 until then.
I've applied Julien's fix and killed this flight.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 8:12 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-05-11 8:19 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-05-11 8:28 ` Ian Campbell
2015-05-11 8:48 ` Jan Beulich
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2015-05-11 8:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper; +Cc: xen-devel, ian.jackson, Jan Beulich, Roger Pau Monne
On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 09:12 +0100, Andrew Cooper 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.
Force pushing would miss out testing the functional aspects of whatever
tests would have run on the other commits in the failed build had it
succeeded.
But given that this is an -xsm build we perhaps don't care so much about
that yet (few of the tests pass yet anyway).
Flight 54309 tested a57b1fff48a8 which is the current staging, and it
failed with the build-amd64-xsm and the freebsd migration thing (which
IMHO we should just whitelist for the time being).
For there to be any possibility of a force push the revert would have to
be the first thing added on top of a57b1fff48a8.
Whatever we do I would suggest killing flight 55228 since it is just
going to fail this build too.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
2015-05-11 8:28 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2015-05-11 8:48 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-05-11 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper, Ian Campbell; +Cc: xen-devel, ian.jackson, Roger Pau Monne
>>> On 11.05.15 at 10:28, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> Flight 54309 tested a57b1fff48a8 which is the current staging, and it
> failed with the build-amd64-xsm and the freebsd migration thing (which
> IMHO we should just whitelist for the time being).
>
> For there to be any possibility of a force push the revert would have to
> be the first thing added on top of a57b1fff48a8.
Which is how I (naturally) did it. But as just noted elsewhere - the
revert is not sufficient to fix the XSM build.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-05-11 10:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-05-09 18:57 [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL osstest service user
2015-05-11 8:08 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 8:12 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-05-11 8:19 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 8:29 ` Ian Campbell
2015-05-11 8:44 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 8:32 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-11 9:05 ` Ian Campbell
2015-05-11 9:38 ` Julien Grall
2015-05-11 10:50 ` Ian Campbell
2015-05-11 8:28 ` Ian Campbell
2015-05-11 8:48 ` Jan Beulich
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.