Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 4607: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 4607: regressions - 
FAIL"):
> hardens my suspicion that some of the tests (the leak-check/check
> ones in particular based on past observation) fail and succeed
> randomly. Shouldn't either tests that cause regular random false
> negatives be removed from the set (or at least made non-blocking),
> or regular random false positives imply that more than one run
> must succeed before an automatic push?

You are indeed right.  And the more tests we add the smaller the
bearable intermittent failure probability is.

I have changed the push gate logic so that it looks for tests of the
same revision, in the way that you did by hand, and doesn't block the
push if it finds that it passed in another run.

This ought to get us pushes more often.  It would still be nice to get
rid of some of these race bugs :-).

Ian.

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