[xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[xen.org]

flight 24250 xen-unstable real [real]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/

Failures :-/ but no regressions.

Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
 test-armhf-armhf-xl           7 debian-install               fail   like 24146
 test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 23938
 test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 24146

Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel  9 guest-start                 fail never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check             fail  never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop         fail never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop             fail never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop              fail never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop             fail never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop                   fail never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop               fail never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop                   fail   never pass
 test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check        fail never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop               fail never pass

version targeted for testing:
 xen                  9a80d5056766535ac624774b96495f8b97b1d28b
baseline version:
 xen                  9a80d5056766535ac624774b96495f8b97b1d28b

jobs:
 build-amd64                                                  pass    
 build-armhf                                                  pass    
 build-i386                                                   pass    
 build-amd64-oldkern                                          pass    
 build-i386-oldkern                                           pass    
 build-amd64-pvops                                            pass    
 build-armhf-pvops                                            pass    
 build-i386-pvops                                             pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl                                          pass    
 test-armhf-armhf-xl                                          fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xl                                           pass    
 test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-amd                                 pass    
 test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-amd                           pass    
 test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd                           pass    
 test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-amd64                              pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64                         fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64                          fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64                         fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64                               fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64                                fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-credit2                                   pass    
 test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-i386                               pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel                              fail    
 test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel                               pass    
 test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-intel                         pass    
 test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel                         pass    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu                                 pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-pair                                        pass    
 test-amd64-i386-pair                                         pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf-pin                                 pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-pv                                          pass    
 test-amd64-i386-pv                                           pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf                                     pass    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1                     fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1                           fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3                          fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3                           fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3                           fail    
 test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3                                fail    
 test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3                                 fail    


------------------------------------------------------------
sg-report-flight on woking.cam.xci-test.com
logs: /home/xc_osstest/logs
images: /home/xc_osstest/images

Logs, config files, etc. are available at
    http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs

Test harness code can be found at
    http://xenbits.xensource.com/gitweb?p=osstest.git;a=summary


Published tested tree is already up to date.

Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 06.01.14 at 10:36, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> flight 24250 xen-unstable real [real]
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/ 
> 
> Failures :-/ but no regressions.
> 
> Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
>  test-armhf-armhf-xl           7 debian-install               fail   like 24146
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 23938
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 24146

These windows-install failures have been pretty persistent for
the last month or two. I've been looking at the logs from the
hypervisor side a number of times without spotting anything. It'd
be nice to know whether anyone also did so from the tools and
qemu sides... In any event we will need to do something about
this before 4.4 goes out.

Jan

Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 12:29 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.01.14 at 10:36, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > flight 24250 xen-unstable real [real]
> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/ 
> > 
> > Failures :-/ but no regressions.
> > 
> > Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
> >  test-armhf-armhf-xl           7 debian-install               fail   like 24146
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 23938
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 24146
> 
> These windows-install failures have been pretty persistent for
> the last month or two. I've been looking at the logs from the
> hypervisor side a number of times without spotting anything. It'd
> be nice to know whether anyone also did so from the tools and
> qemu sides... In any event we will need to do something about
> this before 4.4 goes out.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg

says that Windows experienced an unexpected error.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg

is a blue screen "BAD_POOL_CALLER".

I think this is unlikely to be a toolstack thing, but as to whether it
is a Xen or a Windows issue I wouldn't like to say. I had a look through
the toolstack logs anyway and didn't see anything untoward.
> Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 08.01.14 at 11:49, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 12:29 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.01.14 at 10:36, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> > flight 24250 xen-unstable real [real]
>> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/ 
>> > 
>> > Failures :-/ but no regressions.
>> > 
>> > Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
>> >  test-armhf-armhf-xl           7 debian-install               fail   like 
> 24146
>> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 
> 23938
>> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 
> 24146
>> 
>> These windows-install failures have been pretty persistent for
>> the last month or two. I've been looking at the logs from the
>> hypervisor side a number of times without spotting anything. It'd
>> be nice to know whether anyone also did so from the tools and
>> qemu sides... In any event we will need to do something about
>> this before 4.4 goes out.
> 
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-wi 
> n7-amd64/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
> 
> says that Windows experienced an unexpected error.
> 
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-wi 
> nxpsp3-vcpus1/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
> 
> is a blue screen "BAD_POOL_CALLER".
> 
> I think this is unlikely to be a toolstack thing, but as to whether it
> is a Xen or a Windows issue I wouldn't like to say. I had a look through
> the toolstack logs anyway and didn't see anything untoward.

Right, neither did I. I was particularly thinking of qemu though,
since I think these pretty persistent failures started around the
time the qemu tree upgrade was done. Of course this could just
be coincidence with a hypervisor side change having bad effects.

Jan

Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 10:59 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.01.14 at 11:49, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 12:29 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 06.01.14 at 10:36, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> >> > flight 24250 xen-unstable real [real]
> >> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/ 
> >> > 
> >> > Failures :-/ but no regressions.
> >> > 
> >> > Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
> >> >  test-armhf-armhf-xl           7 debian-install               fail   like 
> > 24146
> >> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 
> > 23938
> >> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 
> > 24146
> >> 
> >> These windows-install failures have been pretty persistent for
> >> the last month or two. I've been looking at the logs from the
> >> hypervisor side a number of times without spotting anything. It'd
> >> be nice to know whether anyone also did so from the tools and
> >> qemu sides... In any event we will need to do something about
> >> this before 4.4 goes out.
> > 
> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-wi 
> > n7-amd64/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
> > 
> > says that Windows experienced an unexpected error.
> > 
> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-wi 
> > nxpsp3-vcpus1/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
> > 
> > is a blue screen "BAD_POOL_CALLER".

FWIW It's code 0x7 which
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff560185%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
says is "The current thread attempted to free the pool, which was
already freed.".

The Internet(tm) seems to think this is often a driver issue. Not that
this helps us much!

> > I think this is unlikely to be a toolstack thing, but as to whether it
> > is a Xen or a Windows issue I wouldn't like to say. I had a look through
> > the toolstack logs anyway and didn't see anything untoward.
> 
> Right, neither did I. I was particularly thinking of qemu though,
> since I think these pretty persistent failures started around the
> time the qemu tree upgrade was done. Of course this could just
> be coincidence with a hypervisor side change having bad effects.

If there is a correlation then it would be interesting to investigate --
Anthony/Stefano could you guys have a look please.

Ian.

Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 11:12 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 10:59 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 08.01.14 at 11:49, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 12:29 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >> >>> On 06.01.14 at 10:36, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > >> > flight 24250 xen-unstable real [real]
> > >> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/ 
> > >> > 
> > >> > Failures :-/ but no regressions.
> > >> > 
> > >> > Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
> > >> >  test-armhf-armhf-xl           7 debian-install               fail   like 
> > > 24146
> > >> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 
> > > 23938
> > >> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 
> > > 24146
> > >> 
> > >> These windows-install failures have been pretty persistent for
> > >> the last month or two. I've been looking at the logs from the
> > >> hypervisor side a number of times without spotting anything. It'd
> > >> be nice to know whether anyone also did so from the tools and
> > >> qemu sides... In any event we will need to do something about
> > >> this before 4.4 goes out.
> > > 
> > > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-wi 
> > > n7-amd64/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
> > > 
> > > says that Windows experienced an unexpected error.
> > > 
> > > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-wi 
> > > nxpsp3-vcpus1/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
> > > 
> > > is a blue screen "BAD_POOL_CALLER".
> 
> FWIW It's code 0x7 which
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff560185%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
> says is "The current thread attempted to free the pool, which was
> already freed.".
> 
> The Internet(tm) seems to think this is often a driver issue. Not that
> this helps us much!
> 
> > > I think this is unlikely to be a toolstack thing, but as to whether it
> > > is a Xen or a Windows issue I wouldn't like to say. I had a look through
> > > the toolstack logs anyway and didn't see anything untoward.
> > 
> > Right, neither did I. I was particularly thinking of qemu though,
> > since I think these pretty persistent failures started around the
> > time the qemu tree upgrade was done. Of course this could just
> > be coincidence with a hypervisor side change having bad effects.
> 
> If there is a correlation then it would be interesting to investigate --
> Anthony/Stefano could you guys have a look please.

The earliest instance I could see with logs was 22371 (10/12/2013).

21288 (30/10/2013) has a windows-install failure but the logs have
expired so I cannot tell if it was the same failure.

I didn't look at the vnc for every failure I spotted, there were a lot
like these, and a lot where Windows was just sat at its login screen
(quite long standing issue I think? Thought not to be us?). 

There were a smattering of other failures too e.g.:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/22466/test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/22455/test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg

(bearing in mind that I didn't check all of them, if there was an easy
way to data mine the screen shots for all the failures of this test into
a directory it might be easier to scan)

Ian.

Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[Anthony PERARD]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:24:50AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 11:12 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 10:59 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > >>> On 08.01.14 at 11:49, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 12:29 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > >> >>> On 06.01.14 at 10:36, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > > >> > flight 24250 xen-unstable real [real]
> > > >> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/ 
> > > >> > 
> > > >> > Failures :-/ but no regressions.
> > > >> > 
> > > >> > Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
> > > >> >  test-armhf-armhf-xl           7 debian-install               fail   like 
> > > > 24146
> > > >> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 
> > > > 23938
> > > >> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 
> > > > 24146
> > > >> 
> > > >> These windows-install failures have been pretty persistent for
> > > >> the last month or two. I've been looking at the logs from the
> > > >> hypervisor side a number of times without spotting anything. It'd
> > > >> be nice to know whether anyone also did so from the tools and
> > > >> qemu sides... In any event we will need to do something about
> > > >> this before 4.4 goes out.
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-wi 
> > > > n7-amd64/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
> > > > 
> > > > says that Windows experienced an unexpected error.
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/test-amd64-i386-xl-wi 
> > > > nxpsp3-vcpus1/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
> > > > 
> > > > is a blue screen "BAD_POOL_CALLER".
> > 
> > FWIW It's code 0x7 which
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff560185%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
> > says is "The current thread attempted to free the pool, which was
> > already freed.".
> > 
> > The Internet(tm) seems to think this is often a driver issue. Not that
> > this helps us much!
> > 
> > > > I think this is unlikely to be a toolstack thing, but as to whether it
> > > > is a Xen or a Windows issue I wouldn't like to say. I had a look through
> > > > the toolstack logs anyway and didn't see anything untoward.
> > > 
> > > Right, neither did I. I was particularly thinking of qemu though,
> > > since I think these pretty persistent failures started around the
> > > time the qemu tree upgrade was done. Of course this could just
> > > be coincidence with a hypervisor side change having bad effects.
> > 
> > If there is a correlation then it would be interesting to investigate --
> > Anthony/Stefano could you guys have a look please.
> 
> The earliest instance I could see with logs was 22371 (10/12/2013).
> 
> 21288 (30/10/2013) has a windows-install failure but the logs have
> expired so I cannot tell if it was the same failure.
> 
> I didn't look at the vnc for every failure I spotted, there were a lot
> like these, and a lot where Windows was just sat at its login screen
> (quite long standing issue I think? Thought not to be us?). 
> 
> There were a smattering of other failures too e.g.:
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/22466/test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/22455/test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg

There is also this one:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/23724/test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
an issue with ntfs.sys.

Or this one:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/23035/test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1/win.guest.osstest--vnc.jpeg
which say "a device driver has pool"
and google respond:
http://www.faultwire.com/solutions-fatal_error/A-device-driver-has-pool-0x000000C5-*1198.html
"A device driver has a bug that attempted to access memory either
nonexistent memory or memory it is not allowed to access."

So, maybe a emulated disk issue or memory issue ?

I'll try to reproduce the issue.

> (bearing in mind that I didn't check all of them, if there was an easy
> way to data mine the screen shots for all the failures of this test into
> a directory it might be easier to scan)

-- 
Anthony PERARD

Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Campbell]

owner 28 Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
thanks
On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 12:55 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> I'll try to reproduce the issue.

Thanks!

Ian.

Processed: Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[xen]

Processing commands for xen@bugs.xenproject.org:

> owner 28 Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
Change owner for #28 to `Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>'
> thanks
Finished processing.

Modified/created Bugs:
 - 28: http://bugs.xenproject.org/xen/bug/28

---
Xen Hypervisor Bug Tracker
See http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Reporting_Bugs_against_Xen for information on reporting bugs
Contact xen-bugs-owner@bugs.xenproject.org with any infrastructure issues

Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Campbell]

create ^
title it Windows install failures/BSOD
severity it blocker
thanks

On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 12:29 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.01.14 at 10:36, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > flight 24250 xen-unstable real [real]
> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/ 
> > 
> > Failures :-/ but no regressions.
> > 
> > Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
> >  test-armhf-armhf-xl           7 debian-install               fail   like 24146
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 23938
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 24146
> 
> These windows-install failures have been pretty persistent for
> the last month or two. I've been looking at the logs from the
> hypervisor side a number of times without spotting anything. It'd
> be nice to know whether anyone also did so from the tools and
> qemu sides... In any event we will need to do something about
> this before 4.4 goes out.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Processed: Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[xen]

Processing commands for xen@bugs.xenproject.org:

> create ^
Created new bug #29 rooted at `<52CC01350200007800111164@nat28.tlf.novell.com>'
Title: `Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL'
> title it Windows install failures/BSOD
Set title for #29 to `Windows install failures/BSOD'
> severity it blocker
Change severity for #29 to `blocker'
> thanks
Finished processing.

Modified/created Bugs:
 - 29: http://bugs.xenproject.org/xen/bug/29 (new)

---
Xen Hypervisor Bug Tracker
See http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Reporting_Bugs_against_Xen for information on reporting bugs
Contact xen-bugs-owner@bugs.xenproject.org with any infrastructure issues

Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[George Dunlap]

close 29
thanks

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> create ^
> title it Windows install failures/BSOD
> severity it blocker
> thanks
>
> On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 12:29 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.01.14 at 10:36, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> > flight 24250 xen-unstable real [real]
>> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24250/
>> >
>> > Failures :-/ but no regressions.
>> >
>> > Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
>> >  test-armhf-armhf-xl           7 debian-install               fail   like 24146
>> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 23938
>> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 24146
>>
>> These windows-install failures have been pretty persistent for
>> the last month or two. I've been looking at the logs from the
>> hypervisor side a number of times without spotting anything. It'd
>> be nice to know whether anyone also did so from the tools and
>> qemu sides... In any event we will need to do something about
>> this before 4.4 goes out.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
>> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Processed: Re: [xen-unstable test] 24250: tolerable FAIL

[xen]

Processing commands for xen@bugs.xenproject.org:

> close 29
Closing bug #29
> thanks
Finished processing.

Modified/created Bugs:
 - 29: http://bugs.xenproject.org/xen/bug/29

---
Xen Hypervisor Bug Tracker
See http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Reporting_Bugs_against_Xen for information on reporting bugs
Contact xen-bugs-owner@bugs.xenproject.org with any infrastructure issues