From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 56759: regressions - FAIL
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:56:55 +0100
Message-ID: <556837E7.3090400@citrix.com>
References: <osstest-56759-mainreport@xen.org>
	<1432115769.12989.219.camel@citrix.com>
	<1432646989.14664.112.camel@citrix.com>
	<1432742677.14664.270.camel@citrix.com>
	<5566F2E9020000780007E6B2@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<1432805194.14664.286.camel@citrix.com>
	<556705CE020000780007E76C@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.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=5842a8f9a=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>)
	id 1YyH2C-0004Um-9d
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 29 May 2015 09:57:00 +0000
In-Reply-To: <556705CE020000780007E76C@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>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 28/05/15 11:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 28.05.15 at 11:26, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 09:50 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 27.05.15 at 18:04, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 14:29 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>> I've now managed to reproduce using the arndale on my desk.
>>>> ... and now I've confirmed that reverting the spin lock change causes
>>>> the issue to not happen any more.
>>> Considering that this issue has prevented a push for almost
>>> two weeks, I think we ought to consider reverting the two
>>> offending commits until the problem got sorted out.
>> I think that would probably be wise. I'll try and figure out exactly
>> what is going on and propose some patches ASAP.
> Now done and pushed.

Wait what?  This failure is not related to spinlocks; It is a networking
behavioural bug (hardware specific, even) which has been uncovered,
showing that there is a preexisting race condition.

It is not reasonable to revert a correct change because it has exposed
an existing race condition elsewhere.  IMO, this should have been a
force push to mark the test as non-blocking.

~Andrew