From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [OSSTEST PATCH 0/3] test linux-next Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:14:34 +0100 Message-ID: <534BC31A.4010704@citrix.com> References: <1397471610-25399-1-git-send-email-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WZeqU-0004pn-58 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:14:38 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1397471610-25399-1-git-send-email-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.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@lists.xenproject.org, Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 14/04/14 11:33, Ian Jackson wrote: > We need a different approach to selecting a baseline for testing > linux-next. I have tested this series and it appeared to work - the > results can be found in this email on xen-devel: > > Subject: [linux-next test] 25862: tolerable FAIL > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 00:28:06 +0100 > > (The test results were a complete disaster because the linux tip on > which this linux-next was based cannot boot under Xen. See flight > 25840. I.e. the failures are a bug in Linux, not in the tester.) > > 1/3 sg-check-tested: add "use strict" > 2/3 sg-check-tested: support --git-ancestor-of > 3/3 cr-*, ap-*: Facilities for testing linux-next The first run of this was a disaster. Unless someone can allocate time (not me, I have no spare time) to triage/improve this run I don't think this is going to be useful for regression testing. David