From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [RFC 0 PATCH 3/3] PVH dom0: construct_dom0 changes Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:16:34 +0100 Message-ID: <52555732.5060907@eu.citrix.com> References: <1380142988-9487-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> <1380142988-9487-4-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> <5244064102000078000F69AF@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20130926171737.071f118f@mantra.us.oracle.com> <524547CF02000078000F73F7@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20131002175358.5f31579c@mantra.us.oracle.com> <524E820002000078000F8C16@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20131007175852.6583ea0d@mantra.us.oracle.com> <5253D58602000078000F975C@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5253D87802000078000F9771@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5253D2E5.6040107@eu.citrix.com> <6b1ddd55-6b5f-4c1e-8c8b-70b0116afc5d@email.android.com> <52555403.1090202@eu.citrix.com> <5255565C.4020302@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VTtd8-0001fx-IP for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:16:46 +0000 In-Reply-To: <5255565C.4020302@citrix.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: Andrew Cooper Cc: xen-devel , keir.xen@gmail.com, Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/10/13 14:13, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 09/10/13 14:02, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 10/08/2013 01:30 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> These issues sprang up with your patches, not with the ones that >>> Mukesh posted ? Which did get tested for regression and passed with >>> flying colours? That means there is a working baseline. Would that help? >>> Mukesh do you have any ideas what might be amiss? >> The issues with the code motion patch are almost certainly mine. Andy >> Cooper ran one of Mukesh's versions through one of the XenRT tests >> (probably a nightly) and it came up fine. I just need to go through >> and figure out what I messed up. > I ran Mukesh's v10 series through a XenServer BST, which confirmed no > glaring function regressions in PV and HVM domains. I'm not sure anyone outside the XenServer team knows what a "BST" might entail. :-) Is that "Basic Smoke Test"? "Build Sanity Test"? "Big Stress Test"? -George