Re: [xen-unstable test] 4607: regressions - FAIL

[Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>]

On 11/01/2011 12:22, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 4607: regressions -
> FAIL"):
>> hardens my suspicion that some of the tests (the leak-check/check
>> ones in particular based on past observation) fail and succeed
>> randomly. Shouldn't either tests that cause regular random false
>> negatives be removed from the set (or at least made non-blocking),
>> or regular random false positives imply that more than one run
>> must succeed before an automatic push?
> 
> You are indeed right.  And the more tests we add the smaller the
> bearable intermittent failure probability is.
> 
> I have changed the push gate logic so that it looks for tests of the
> same revision, in the way that you did by hand, and doesn't block the
> push if it finds that it passed in another run.
> 
> This ought to get us pushes more often.  It would still be nice to get
> rid of some of these race bugs :-).

Where are the races, do you think?

 -- Keir

> Ian.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel