From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: New release candidate for Xen 4.0.0 (RC9) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:52:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20100331195223.GA15322@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <20100331191019.GA18721@phenom.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:33:13PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 31/03/2010 20:10, "Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" wrote: > > >> This is almost certainly the last RC, and will become the 4.0.0 release > >> around the middle of next week. Please test! > > > > I don't have a fix, but I did this (this is with xen/stable-2.6.32.x > > latest and also rolled back to git commit > > 47bd9cad11b1a723c6e5d1127aebe570a3e34f34 > > with a cherry pick of d3b9e35a81e31ff4edb4666f9c36eb5b2032f4da - just in case > > the problem was due to the PAT changes): > > Is it a regression? I haven't tried this type of operation before so I can't comment. I can spin out a Xen hypervisor - what version back do you want me to compare to? Interestingly, on Intel it makes the machine crawl and gets CPU#0 stuck, while on AMD I get that nice crash. > > -- Keir > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel