[xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[xen.org]

flight 17914 xen-unstable real [real]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/17914/

Failures :-/ but no regressions.

Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel  9 guest-start                 fail never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check             fail  never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop               fail never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop             fail never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop                   fail  never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop                   fail   never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop               fail never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check        fail never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop         fail never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop               fail never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop             fail never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop              fail never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop                   fail never pass

version targeted for testing:
 xen                  1c61028eabb4e2bb37f7541915c1bee4abab94e8
baseline version:
 xen                  1c61028eabb4e2bb37f7541915c1bee4abab94e8

jobs:
 build-amd64                                                  pass    
 build-armhf                                                  pass    
 build-i386                                                   pass    
 build-amd64-oldkern                                          pass    
 build-i386-oldkern                                           pass    
 build-amd64-pvops                                            pass    
 build-i386-pvops                                             pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl                                          pass    
 test-amd64-i386-xl                                           pass    
 test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-amd                                 pass    
 test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-amd                           pass    
 test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd                           pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64                         fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64                          fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64                         fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64                               fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64                                fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-credit2                                   pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel                              fail    
 test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel                               pass    
 test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-intel                         pass    
 test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel                         pass    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu                                 pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-pair                                        pass    
 test-amd64-i386-pair                                         pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf-pin                                 pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-pv                                          pass    
 test-amd64-i386-pv                                           pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf                                     pass    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1                     fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1                           fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3                          fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3                           fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3                           fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3                                fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3                                 fail    


------------------------------------------------------------
sg-report-flight on woking.cam.xci-test.com
logs: /home/xc_osstest/logs
images: /home/xc_osstest/images

Logs, config files, etc. are available at
    http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs

Test harness code can be found at
    http://xenbits.xensource.com/gitweb?p=osstest.git;a=summary


Published tested tree is already up to date.

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[George Dunlap]

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:27 AM, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> flight 17914 xen-unstable real [real]
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/17914/
>
> Failures :-/ but no regressions.
>
> Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel  9 guest-start                 fail never pass
>  test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check             fail  never pass
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop               fail never pass
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop             fail never pass
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop                   fail  never pass
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop                   fail   never pass
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop               fail never pass
>  test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check        fail never pass
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop         fail never pass
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop               fail never pass
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop             fail never pass
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop              fail never pass
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop                   fail never pass
>
> version targeted for testing:
>  xen                  1c61028eabb4e2bb37f7541915c1bee4abab94e8
> baseline version:
>  xen                  1c61028eabb4e2bb37f7541915c1bee4abab94e8

It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good
candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it).

What's the procedure for getting this tagged?  It would be good for
this one also to have a tarball available for tomorrow's test day.

 -George

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Jackson]

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"):
> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good
> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it).

It looks like we still need to update some sonames.  See patch below.

Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ?  I think
we probably do.

I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1.
Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream.
We then need to update xen.git's Config.mk to refer to those tags.

Thanks,
Ian.

commit 676688c11a3fa0e86572a8c2262aa581fbbcf870
Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Date:   Tue May 7 11:39:10 2013 +0100

    tools: Bump some library sonames
    
    libxc (libxenctrl, libxenguest):
       New claim_enabled field in struct xc_dom_image;
       New nr_outstanding_pages field in struct xc_dominfo;
       New fields in struct xc_hvm_build_args (xenguest.h).
    
    libxl:
       new fields in dominfo domain_build_info device_vfb device_vkb
         device_disk etc. etc. etc.
       libxlu #includes libxl headers so needs to inherit its new soname
       Use Xen version for new sonames since we don't in fact guarantee
       ABI (as opposed to API) stability across releases.
    
    xenstore (libxenstore):
       New flag XS_UNWATCH_FILTER, so bump minor version only.
    
    This was the result of reviewing the output from:
      git-checkout staging
      cd tools
      git-diff RELEASE-4.2.2 `find -name \*.h`
    
    Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>

diff --git a/tools/libxc/Makefile b/tools/libxc/Makefile
index 640e333..b200123 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/Makefile
+++ b/tools/libxc/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 XEN_ROOT = $(CURDIR)/../..
 include $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/Rules.mk
 
-MAJOR    = 4.2
+MAJOR    = 4.3
 MINOR    = 0
 
 CTRL_SRCS-y       :=
diff --git a/tools/libxl/Makefile b/tools/libxl/Makefile
index 2984051..cf214bb 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/Makefile
+++ b/tools/libxl/Makefile
@@ -5,11 +5,11 @@
 XEN_ROOT = $(CURDIR)/../..
 include $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/Rules.mk
 
-MAJOR = 2.0
+MAJOR = 4.3
 MINOR = 0
 
-XLUMAJOR = 1.0
-XLUMINOR = 1
+XLUMAJOR = 4.3
+XLUMINOR = 0
 
 CFLAGS += -Werror -Wno-format-zero-length -Wmissing-declarations \
 	-Wno-declaration-after-statement -Wformat-nonliteral
diff --git a/tools/xenstore/Makefile b/tools/xenstore/Makefile
index 1bb6e58..262f401 100644
--- a/tools/xenstore/Makefile
+++ b/tools/xenstore/Makefile
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ XEN_ROOT=$(CURDIR)/../..
 include $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/Rules.mk
 
 MAJOR = 3.0
-MINOR = 2
+MINOR = 3
 
 CFLAGS += -Werror
 CFLAGS += -I.

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Campbell]

>     tools: Bump some library sonames
>     
>     libxc (libxenctrl, libxenguest):
>        New claim_enabled field in struct xc_dom_image;
>        New nr_outstanding_pages field in struct xc_dominfo;
>        New fields in struct xc_hvm_build_args (xenguest.h).
>     
>     libxl:
>        new fields in dominfo domain_build_info device_vfb device_vkb
>          device_disk etc. etc. etc.
>        libxlu #includes libxl headers so needs to inherit its new soname
>        Use Xen version for new sonames since we don't in fact guarantee
>        ABI (as opposed to API) stability across releases.
>     
>     xenstore (libxenstore):
>        New flag XS_UNWATCH_FILTER, so bump minor version only.
>     
>     This was the result of reviewing the output from:
>       git-checkout staging
>       cd tools
>       git-diff RELEASE-4.2.2 `find -name \*.h`
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>

Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>

[PATCH] README: update version number

[Ian Jackson]

commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136
Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Date:   Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100

    README: update version number
    
    Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc".  Also remove the
    paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2.  At some point we should
    replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3.
    
    Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>

diff --git a/README b/README
index 6c4742f..595d0c8 100644
--- a/README
+++ b/README
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 #################################
- __  __            _  _    ____  
- \ \/ /___ _ __   | || |  |___ \ 
-  \  // _ \ '_ \  | || |_   __) |
-  /  \  __/ | | | |__   _| / __/ 
- /_/\_\___|_| |_|    |_|(_)_____|
+__  __            _  _    _____                
+\ \/ /___ _ __   | || |  |___ /       _ __ ___ 
+ \  // _ \ '_ \  | || |_   |_ \ _____| '__/ __|
+ /  \  __/ | | | |__   _| ___) |_____| | | (__ 
+/_/\_\___|_| |_|    |_|(_)____/      |_|  \___|
                              
 #################################
 
@@ -19,11 +19,6 @@ is freely-distributable Open Source software, released under the GNU
 GPL. Since its initial public release, Xen has grown a large
 development community, spearheaded by xen.org (http://www.xen.org).
 
-The 4.2 release offers excellent performance, hardware support and
-enterprise-grade features such as x86_32-PAE, x86_64, SMP guests and
-live relocation of VMs. Ports to Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD and Solaris
-are available from the community.
-
 This file contains some quick-start instructions to install Xen on
 your system. For more information see http:/www.xen.org/ and
 http://wiki.xen.org/

Re: [PATCH] README: update version number

[George Dunlap]

On 07/05/13 13:42, Ian Jackson wrote:
> commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136
> Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> Date:   Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100
>
>      README: update version number
>      
>      Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc".  Also remove the
>      paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2.  At some point we should
>      replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3.
>      
>      Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>

Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>

Re: [PATCH] README: update version number

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 13:43 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/05/13 13:42, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136
> > Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> > Date:   Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100
> >
> >      README: update version number
> >      
> >      Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc".  Also remove the
> >      paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2.  At some point we should
> >      replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3.
> >      
> >      Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> 
> Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>

Has one of you you put "update 4.3-rc into 4.3" onto a checklist
somewhere?

Re: [PATCH] README: update version number

[George Dunlap]

On 07/05/13 13:59, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 13:43 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 07/05/13 13:42, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136
>>> Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
>>> Date:   Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100
>>>
>>>       README: update version number
>>>       
>>>       Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc".  Also remove the
>>>       paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2.  At some point we should
>>>       replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3.
>>>       
>>>       Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
>> Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> Has one of you you put "update 4.3-rc into 4.3" onto a checklist
> somewhere?

Now I have. :-)

BTW, can we take "Audit changes / bump SONAMEs" off the list, or might 
that need to be done for other libraries?

  -George

Re: [PATCH] README: update version number

[Ian Jackson]

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH] README: update version number"):
> BTW, can we take "Audit changes / bump SONAMEs" off the list, or might 
> that need to be done for other libraries?

That is what I think I have just done.

I didn't look at anything outside tools/ but I think that's right ?

Ian.

Re: [PATCH] README: update version number

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 13:42 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136
> Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> Date:   Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100
> 
>     README: update version number
>     
>     Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc".  Also remove the
>     paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2.  At some point we should
>     replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>

Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>

Re: [PATCH] README: update version number

[Keir Fraser]

On 07/05/2013 05:42, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136
> Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> Date:   Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100
> 
>     README: update version number
>     
>     Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc".  Also remove the
>     paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2.  At some point we should
>     replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>

Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Tue, 7 May 2013, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1.
> Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream.
> We then need to update xen.git's Config.mk to refer to those tags.

done

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 07.05.13 at 12:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"):
>> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good
>> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it).
> 
> It looks like we still need to update some sonames.  See patch below.
> 
> Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ?  I think
> we probably do.
> 
> I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1.
> Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream.
> We then need to update xen.git's Config.mk to refer to those tags.

Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.

George, am I taking it right that with the tagging of RC1 the tree
freeze is over, and I can commit the few fixes that accumulated
over the last couple of days? Or should I wait until the tagged
commit got pushed too?

Jan

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[George Dunlap]

On 07/05/13 15:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.05.13 at 12:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"):
>>> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good
>>> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it).
>> It looks like we still need to update some sonames.  See patch below.
>>
>> Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ?  I think
>> we probably do.
>>
>> I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1.
>> Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream.
>> We then need to update xen.git's Config.mk to refer to those tags.
> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.
>
> George, am I taking it right that with the tagging of RC1 the tree
> freeze is over, and I can commit the few fixes that accumulated
> over the last couple of days? Or should I wait until the tagged
> commit got pushed too?

I wrote in a different e-mail "The tree is now open for commits again", 
but maybe you missed it because it was after the bit about the RTC bug.

  -George

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 07.05.13 at 16:16, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> On 07/05/13 15:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 07.05.13 at 12:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable 
> FAIL"):
>>>> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good
>>>> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it).
>>> It looks like we still need to update some sonames.  See patch below.
>>>
>>> Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ?  I think
>>> we probably do.
>>>
>>> I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1.
>>> Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream.
>>> We then need to update xen.git's Config.mk to refer to those tags.
>> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
>> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
>> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
>> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.
>>
>> George, am I taking it right that with the tagging of RC1 the tree
>> freeze is over, and I can commit the few fixes that accumulated
>> over the last couple of days? Or should I wait until the tagged
>> commit got pushed too?
> 
> I wrote in a different e-mail "The tree is now open for commits again", 
> but maybe you missed it because it was after the bit about the RTC bug.

No, I'm sorry for the noise:, I should have read _all_ xen-devel mails
before replying to this one.

Jan

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[George Dunlap]

On 07/05/13 15:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.05.13 at 16:16, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 07/05/13 15:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 07.05.13 at 12:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable
>> FAIL"):
>>>>> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good
>>>>> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it).
>>>> It looks like we still need to update some sonames.  See patch below.
>>>>
>>>> Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ?  I think
>>>> we probably do.
>>>>
>>>> I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1.
>>>> Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream.
>>>> We then need to update xen.git's Config.mk to refer to those tags.
>>> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
>>> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
>>> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
>>> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.
>>>
>>> George, am I taking it right that with the tagging of RC1 the tree
>>> freeze is over, and I can commit the few fixes that accumulated
>>> over the last couple of days? Or should I wait until the tagged
>>> commit got pushed too?
>> I wrote in a different e-mail "The tree is now open for commits again",
>> but maybe you missed it because it was after the bit about the RTC bug.
> No, I'm sorry for the noise:, I should have read _all_ xen-devel mails
> before replying to this one.

Oh, right -- fair enough.  :-)  The benefit of a separate e-mail is that 
it catches people's eye who haven't been following the thread; the cost 
is that there's a disconnect in the conversation...

  -George

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Jackson]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"):
> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.

You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ?  I wasn't sure
whether that ought to be changed.  It's on the checklist but I don't
know what the usual practice is for an RC.

Ian.

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"):
>> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
>> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
>> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
>> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.
> 
> You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ?  I wasn't sure
> whether that ought to be changed.  It's on the checklist but I don't
> know what the usual practice is for an RC.

Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don't
mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs.

Jan

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:46 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"):
> >> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
> >> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
> >> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
> >> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.
> > 
> > You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ?  I wasn't sure
> > whether that ought to be changed.  It's on the checklist but I don't
> > know what the usual practice is for an RC.
> 
> Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don't
> mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs.

It would have been useful so that dmesg logs for people building from
the tarball will contain the right version. People building from git/hg
are less of a concern assuming the latest cset thing still works.

Ian.

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[George Dunlap]

On 08/05/13 09:33, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:46 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"):
>>>> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
>>>> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
>>>> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
>>>> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.
>>> You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ?  I wasn't sure
>>> whether that ought to be changed.  It's on the checklist but I don't
>>> know what the usual practice is for an RC.
>> Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don't
>> mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs.
> It would have been useful so that dmesg logs for people building from
> the tarball will contain the right version. People building from git/hg
> are less of a concern assuming the latest cset thing still works.

I don't think it does:

  \ \/ /___ _ __   | || |  |___ /    _   _ _ __  ___| |_ __ _| |__ | | ___
   \  // _ \ '_ \  | || |_   |_ \ __| | | | '_ \/ __| __/ _` | '_ \| |/ _ \
   /  \  __/ | | | |__   _| ___) |__| |_| | | | \__ \ || (_| | |_) | |  __/
  /_/\_\___|_| |_|    |_|(_)____/    \__,_|_| |_|___/\__\__,_|_.__/|_|\___|

(XEN) Xen version 4.3-unstable (root@) (gcc (Debian 4.7.2-5) 4.7.2) 
debug=y Thu May  2 16:29:11 BST 2013
(XEN) Latest ChangeSet: unavailable

# xl info
host                   : exile
[snip]
xen_changeset          : unavailable
[snip]
cc_compile_date        : Thu May  2 16:29:11 BST 2013

  -George

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 08.05.13 at 10:33, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:46 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable 
> FAIL"):
>> >> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
>> >> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
>> >> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
>> >> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.
>> > 
>> > You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ?  I wasn't sure
>> > whether that ought to be changed.  It's on the checklist but I don't
>> > know what the usual practice is for an RC.
>> 
>> Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don't
>> mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs.
> 
> It would have been useful so that dmesg logs for people building from
> the tarball will contain the right version. People building from git/hg
> are less of a concern assuming the latest cset thing still works.

Which, as we know from a patch posted by Marek Marczykowski
that never got applied, currently only works for hg, but not git.

Jan

Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL

[George Dunlap]

On 08/05/13 07:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"):
>>> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
>>> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's
>>> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and
>>> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.
>> You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ?  I wasn't sure
>> whether that ought to be changed.  It's on the checklist but I don't
>> know what the usual practice is for an RC.
> Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don't
> mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs.

I think it would be better to update the EXTRAVERSION, but it's not a 
terribly big deal I don't think.

  -George