From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [xen-4.4-testing test] 60673: regressions - FAIL Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:14:49 +0100 Message-ID: <1439716489.3480.31.camel@citrix.com> References: <55CDDA1A020000780009AF5F@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZQu1r-0004k2-Hl for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:14:59 +0000 In-Reply-To: <55CDDA1A020000780009AF5F@prv-mh.provo.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 , xen-devel , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 04:07 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > On 14.08.15 at 11:14, wrote: > > flight 60673 xen-4.4-testing real [real] > > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/60673/ > > > > Regressions :-( > > > > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, > > including tests which could not be run: > > test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu 16 guest-start/debian.repeat fail > > REGR. vs. 60152 > > Iirc this same test has been failing here and there a number of times > recently FYI there is data about this sort of thing at http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/$test e.g. http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu/ and especially: http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu/ALL.html http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu/xen-4.4-testing.html > - is this a sign of some issue unrelated to the software under > test? it does seem to have been happening on this branch a lot since the colo move. I think that is more likely to be down to the change in the underlying hardware as to something wrong with the code. OTOH The history for 4.5-testing and unstable shows a far lower incidence that 4.4. > If so, I'd be inclined to suggest a force push based on this flight. Overall I think I'm inclined to agree, I suppose your motive is that you want to get 4.4.x+1 out the door and I don't think we should block that over this issue. > > Jan > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel