From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 26421: regressions - FAIL
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 15:29:51 +0100
Message-ID: <537F5B5F.1040108@citrix.com>
References: <osstest-26421-mainreport@xen.org>
	<537F721202000078000155D7@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>) id 1WnqTs-0001he-HB
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 14:29:56 +0000
In-Reply-To: <537F721202000078000155D7@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 23/05/14 15:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.05.14 at 13:21, <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> flight 26421 xen-unstable real [real]
>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/26421/ 
>>
>> Regressions :-(
>>
>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>> including tests which could not be run:
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  9 guest-saverestore  fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 12 guest-localmigrate.2 fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3  7 windows-install      fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3-vcpus1 7 windows-install fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install      fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 7 windows-install fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install     fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3   7 windows-install           fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3  7 windows-install     fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3  7 windows-install           fail REGR. vs. 26361
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install     fail REGR. vs. 26361
> So looking at the BSOD here, I'm afraid this is due to the hvmloader
> changes. As can be seen only WinXP has a problem with this, so I
> wonder whether - with support for it having ended - we really still
> need to support it. If we do, I guess for now the only option is to
> revert (until I can find time to try out alternatives, like having
> available two templates - one with and one without a high PCI
> range, returning the one with only if that region isn't empty - or
> see whether the element count in the block could by dynamically
> modified, allowing us to strip off the final field).
>
> Jan

Win2k3 is still in support for another year, and will almost certainly
be affected in the same way.

Even though XP is out of support, there are still many people using it,
so breaking it and removing the tests is rather antisocial.

~Andrew