From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 53884: regressions - FAIL
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 09:12:29 +0100
Message-ID: <5550646D.1010502@citrix.com>
References: <osstest-53884-mainreport@xen.org>
	<55507FB50200007800078C01@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 <amc96@hermes.cam.ac.uk>) id 1YripH-0006R8-OY
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 11 May 2015 08:12:35 +0000
In-Reply-To: <55507FB50200007800078C01@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>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, "Ian.Campbell@citrix.com" <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 11/05/2015 09:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.05.15 at 20:57, <osstest@xenbits.xen.org> wrote:
>> flight 53884 xen-unstable real [real]
>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/53884/ 
>>
>> Regressions :-(
>>
>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>> including tests which could not be run:
>>  build-amd64-xsm               5 xen-build                 fail REGR. vs. 50405
> This is due to e5786bae04 ("x86/pvh: use a custom IO bitmap for
> PVH hardware domains"). Having requested th addition during
> review I of course took it for granted that you build tested your
> change. As dealing with this imo also means moving the code
> addition into the already existing (or a new) CONFIG_X86 block
> (along with moving the declaration to a more suitable header), I
> think a fixup patch would not be the right way to deal with this,
> and hence I think I'm going to revert that change for the time
> being.

Given this reversion (and confirmation that the build is fixed), would a
force push be justified?  We are now a full month behind, with other 
OSSTest issues still outstanding.

~Andrew