From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 4607: regressions - FAIL Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:30:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <19756.19342.160120.151400@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <19756.19342.160120.151400@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Jackson , Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/01/2011 12:22, "Ian Jackson" 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