From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [ovmf test] 59044: trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:35:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1436178946.25646.30.camel@citrix.com> References: <1436171685.25646.8.camel@citrix.com> <21914.22700.975480.13866@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <21914.22700.975480.13866@mariner.uk.xensource.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: Ian Jackson Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, osstest service owner List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 11:30 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [ovmf test] 59044: trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass"): > > Seems to be Osstest/JobDB/Executive.pm line 137: > > die Dumper($ho)." ?" if $ho->{SharedOthers} && ! > > $ho->{SharedReady}; > > So another sharing related glitch, like the linux-3.18 flight 59041 I > > just pointedy ou at (which was on armhf though). > > > > Any ideas? > > This has the same root cause as the other mystery failure. > > I hadn't appreciated that the checks in the host sharing machinery > would mean that if a job allocates a share in a host, later steps in > that job will fail if (in a subroutine of `selecthost') if they are > run using a different version of osstest. Having had the chance to > think about it, I think this is probably for the best. I agree. > It does mean that in-place updates like I did will have a tendency to > break ongoing builds. They are a pretty rare event, and I suppose having realised this aspect they might become rarer still.. Ian.