Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [xen-unstable test] 1960: tolerable FAIL - PUSHED

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pasi Kärkkäinen writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [xen-unstable test] 1960: 
tolerable FAIL - PUSHED"):
> Could you tell more about the kernels used.. Exact versions? 

The exact versions are a bit obscured but they are in the logs.  For
example,
   
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/1960/build-amd64/3.ts-xen-build.log

has this quite near the top:

  2010-07-24 18:59:40 Z setting revision_linux=
  2010-07-24 18:59:40 Z setting revision_pq_linux=
  2010-07-24 18:59:40 Z setting revision_qemu=
  2010-07-24 18:59:40 Z setting revision_xen=ac7e4c6ec6c7
  2010-07-24 18:59:40 Z setting 
tree_linux=git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git
  2010-07-24 18:59:40 Z setting 
tree_qemu=git://mariner.uk.xensource.com/qemu-xen-unstable.git
  2010-07-24 18:59:40 Z setting 
tree_xen=http://hg.uk.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg

and then quite near the end:

  2010-07-24 19:19:47 Z runvar store: built_vcs_linux=git
  2010-07-24 19:19:47 Z runvar store: 
built_revision_linux=c0a00fbeb3b16c473c0f2081a3360d2f8a795061
  2010-07-24 19:19:47 Z runvar store: 
built_xen_kerneldirs=linux-2.6-pvops.git/.git

So that tells you that it cloned
  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git
without an intention to test a specific revision of the kernel and
that the version it actually got was
  c0a00fbeb3b16c473c0f2081a3360d2f8a795061

> Might be good info to know for others when testing things on their
> own systems..

The reporting is a bit bare-bones.  Perhaps I should have it write a
web page for each flight (test run) which gives these kind of vital
statistics.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel