From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:18:11 +0200 Message-ID: <1340212691.20225.19.camel@Solace> References: <4FE19D1B020000780008ABDB@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8130890186397400921==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FE19D1B020000780008ABDB@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: keir@xen.org, xen-devel , ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============8130890186397400921== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-pxJ56hlMJ7IL1URqjHJv" --=-pxJ56hlMJ7IL1URqjHJv Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 08:51 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 20.06.12 at 04:40, xen.org wrote: > > branch xen-unstable > > xen branch xen-unstable > > job test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 > > test windows-install > >=20 > > Tree: linux git://xenbits.xen.org/linux-pvops.git > > Tree: qemu git://xenbits.xen.org/staging/qemu-xen-unstable.git > > Tree: qemuu git://xenbits.xen.org/staging/qemu-upstream-unstable.git > > Tree: xen http://xenbits.xen.org/staging/xen-unstable.hg=20 > >=20 > > *** Found and reproduced problem changeset *** > >=20 > > Bug is in tree: xen http://xenbits.xen.org/staging/xen-unstable.hg= =20 > > Bug introduced: 9d1fd58ff602 > > Bug not present: 32034d1914a6 > >=20 > >=20 > > changeset: 25468:9d1fd58ff602 > > user: Dario Faggioli > > date: Fri Jun 08 15:26:01 2012 +0100 > > =20 > > xl: check for meaningful combination of sedf config file paramete= rs >=20 Ok, this was causing a bug at least in *-sedf-* related tes runs, for which I just sent a fix (, [PATCH] xl: fix sedf parameters checking). Basically, when not specifying explicitly the sedf scheduling parameters, one couldn't even start a new domain. I'd swear I tested that case, even more than once, but I apparently am wrong. :-( Anyway, sorry for both that and not noticing this sooner. As soon as we'll have the fix committed (provided you like it) we can see what happens to both the -sedf and non -sedf runs in future flights. I know the bisector is something to be trusted, but I really hope to see the issue for non -sedf cases to be caused by something else, as I can't reproduce it and neither I can see how that could happen. :-O Thanks and Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://retis.sssup.it/people/faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-pxJ56hlMJ7IL1URqjHJv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk/iBdMACgkQk4XaBE3IOsSQ6QCgizdqV9vClirak92nHmxkgGiA A8oAnjt2D2ympmk9s1utzxWxR7VKzcGs =aUkS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-pxJ56hlMJ7IL1URqjHJv-- --===============8130890186397400921== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============8130890186397400921==--