From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33129) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eRm4O-0004DL-5p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:38:33 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eRm4J-0002IN-Dw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:38:32 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33824) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eRm4J-0002Db-7R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:38:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:38:20 -0200 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20171220213820.GF24025@localhost.localdomain> References: <20171214040855.22231-1-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20171218220901.GE5209@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RESEND PATCH for-2.12 0/2] ACPI/unit-test: Add a testcase List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Dou Liyang Cc: imammedo@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, indou.takao@jp.fujitsu.com On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:01:59PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > Hi Eduardo, > > At 12/19/2017 06:09 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:08:53PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > > > These are the patches left over from the pull request: > > > > > > [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/9] x86 and machine queue, 2017-10-05 > > > > > > because of some errors when tested by "make check" command[1]. > > > > > > Now, the QEMU 2.11.0 has been released, rebase/retest/respin them > > > for v2.12 dev. > > > > > > Changelog: > > > --Rebase and retest this patch in v2.11.0 > > > --Update the DSDT.numamem: > > > > > > [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg01334.html > > > > Do we know what caused the failures Peter saw, and if we can now > > be sure it won't happen again? > > Sorry, I can't. I tested it many times with my colleagues, it won't > happen like Peter saw. This issue is very subtle and funny. Could you > give me some suggestions? I guess all we can do is to ask Peter to test if the issue is still reproducible. Peter, do you prefer that I just send a regular pull request asking for testing, or do you prefer to apply this series and test it manually before I send a pull request? > > BTW, I used "make TEST_ACPI_REBUILD_AML=1 check" to create the DSDT > file. Is it correct? This sounds correct to me. Igor, can you confirm? -- Eduardo