From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 59681: regressions - FAIL Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:28:45 +0100 Message-ID: <55ACB13D.7070301@citrix.com> References: <55ACAEE8.6060002@citrix.com> <20150720082454.GA1938@zion.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150720082454.GA1938@zion.uk.xensource.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: Wei Liu Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian Jackson , "Ian.Campbell@citrix.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 20/07/2015 09:24, Wei Liu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:18:48AM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 18/07/2015 13:07, osstest service owner wrote: >>> flight 59681 xen-unstable real [real] >>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/59681/ >>> >>> Regressions :-( >>> >>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, >>> including tests which could not be run: >>> test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 9 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. vs. 58965 >>> test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64 9 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. vs. 58965 >> Wei: Am I correct in remembering that you nominated these two tests for >> being added to the allowable category? >> > Only the first one should be marked allowable. > > The second failure looks spurious. In the next xen-unstable run, it > passed. Ah yes - so it did. Should we do a force push then? It appears that subsequent runs started hitting problems when cloning repos to build. ~Andrew