Re: [Xen-devel] Status of 4.13 - Marek Marczykowski-Górecki

From: "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki" <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
To: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@zededa.com>
Cc: "Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>, "Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>,
	"George Dunlap" <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	"Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	"Julien Grall" <julien.grall@arm.com>,
	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Status of 4.13
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 23:07:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191121220704.GA2012@mail-itl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMmSBy9ytrZ6dhvPWGj5K8aHYOaTfFFwnS3oLbMwUpRDAGEzjA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2748 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:39:14AM -0800, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:38 AM Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 21/11/2019 17:31, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:06 PM Jürgen Groß <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> > >> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
> > >>
> > >> 1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
> > >>     I'm not quite sure whether the currently debated patch of Andrew is
> > >>     fixing the problem. If not, do we know what is missing or how to
> > >>     address the issue? If yes, could we please come to an agreement?
> > >>     As an alternative: any thoughts about ignoring this test failure for
> > >>     4.13-RC3 (IOW: doing a force push)?
> > >>
> > >> 2. Ryzen/Rome failures with Windows guests:
> > >>     What is the currently planned way to address the problem? Who is
> > >>     working on that?
> > >>
> > >> 3. Pending patches for 4.13:
> > >>     Could I please have feedback which patches tagged as "for-4.13" are
> > >>     fixing real regressions or issues? I don't want to take any patches
> > >>     not fixing real problems after RC3, and I hope to be able to get a
> > >>     push rather sooner than later to be able to let Ian cut RC3.
> > >>
> > >> 4. Are there any blockers for 4.13 other than 1. and 2. (apart of any
> > >>     pending XSAs)?
> > > Any chance the efi=no-rs regression can be added to the list? I understand
> > > that I'm still on the hook to provide more details (I promise to do it on Fri
> > > when I get to my lab to actually have a serial console on all these boxes).
> > > At the same time this is a pretty serious regression for an entire class of
> > > devices where Xen was perfectly happy even during RC1.
> >
> > https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=534f9e29ce28580892b3856036b5e5cd805667cc
> > has been committed.  It is in staging, but not in master yet (because
> > master is blocked by my regression in 1).
> 
> I'll make sure to test it on Fri, but here's where I'm lost -- my
> understanding that
> activation of this patch requires a special build flag to be passed.
> Which means,
> we're still very much in a regresses state when it comes to building
> out-of-the-box,
> no?

No, there are two thing:
1. A bug triggered by efi=no-rs flag - fixed in the above commit
2. A second commit making efi=no-rs unnecessary on some machines - this
is what require build flag (CONFIG_EFI_SET_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_MAP=y).

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel