From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Jackson Subject: Re: [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-i386-i386-xl Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20244.5493.159092.178261@mariner.uk.xensource.com> References: <1326709302.17210.402.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <291EDFCB1E9E224A99088639C4762022B5991BEC4B@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <291EDFCB1E9E224A99088639C4762022B5991BEC4E@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <291EDFCB1E9E224A99088639C4762022B5991BEC4E@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Paul Durrant Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "Keir (Xen.org)" , Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-i386-i386-xl"): > It all seems to be gated correctly on the whether the VM is HVM and/or the existence of the appropriate save record. Well, the bisector, when it fingers a changeset, is pretty reliable. The revision graph shows that it tried each of 3c4c5df2cd0e and 92630d4b093e three times and got consistent results. So as you were the author of the original patch, can you please try to reproduce the problem and fix it ? Thanks, Ian.