From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony PERARD Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 27016: regressions - FAIL Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:45:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20140612154547.GC1128@perard> References: <5396E5E10200007800019583@mail.emea.novell.com> <1402391540.29980.14.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <21398.58381.626894.213667@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Wv7Cq-0005pR-Q6 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:46:24 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21398.58381.626894.213667@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 , Stefano Stabellini , Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:55:09AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 27016: regressions - FAIL"): > > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 10:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > From the looks of it this failure is persistent (seen in all three flights > > > over the weekend), pointing at qemu and USB. Not sure who to > > > ask to look into this, not the least because none of the rather > > > many pending changes appear to be an immediate candidate. > > > Perhaps we ought to wait for the bisector to get going on it... > > > > The bisector is close to fingering the big upstream qemu merge. Stefano > > and Anthony are investigating and Ian J was looking into perhaps doing > > an adhoc bisect of the upstream branch, but last I heard picking a > > baseline was looking problematic. > > Our options at this stage are: > > * Continue to try to debug it, blocking other trees in the meantime. > > * Force push xen-unstable (and other affected trees of which there > will probably be quite a few). That will turn this failure from a > blocking regression into an allowable failure. This will allow > other work to continue but may take the pressure off trying to fix > it. > > * Revert the merge in qemu-upstream-unstable.git. This will return > us to qemu 1.6.0. > > 11:37 Diziet, I did not find any obvious bug with qemu > 2.0. All I found is the guest that take about 1 or > 2 min to respond again > > Stefano says that this is a decision for the release manager, and I'm > inclined to concur. > > (If a force push is called for I will do it. I can also help with > reverting the merge if that's what's decided.) The first qemu upstream commit to fail the test: 6eefccc0bb9c34051b1e21880fc3a1c1c8686edd roms: update vgabios binaries This also switches from lgplvgabios to seavgabios. A more recent version of the seavgabios binary fix the issue with freebsd, so I asked for a backport in an other email. But there is still a minor issue related to qemu 2.0, it concernes VNC. The screen does not properly get updated (when moving a window under Windows for example). -- Anthony PERARD