RE: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-xl

["Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 14:03, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> If it's really this changeset it's a bit weird. It would have to be
>>> due to the more permissive table validation causing us to enable
>>> ACPI ERST support based on a bad BIOS table, or a table which for
>>> some reason we're not supporting properly, or a class of machines
>>> (e.g., AMD) for which our ERST logic is not currently implemented
>>> properly. 
>>> 
>>> Does reverting just the change to erst_check_table() fix the
>>> regression on the affected test boxes? What about the
>>> similar-looking boot failure that you see, Jeremy?
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>> 
>> It looks strange to me. Native linux also update it to work well at
>> different bios platform. We have tested it at our 'old' and a 'new'
>> platform, it works well with the patch. I'm not sure why it cannot
>> work at the machine you test. 
> 
> It's obviously a latent bug in our handling of that table, which is
> uncovered only when that table-validation check is relaxed to permit
> parsing of the table on a much broader range of machines. Perhaps we
> can work with you to run some out-of-tree patches to gather useful
> tracing information on failing machines?
> 
>  -- Keir

Sure, and of course thanks for help me co-debug it :)

Seems it's not a quite urgent bug, so may I firstly complete Xen RAS core error 
recovery patch?
I will have vacation for 2 weeks from Aug 19, before that I hope to make core 
error recovery patch done.
When I come back, I will fix this bug ASAP, is it OK for your plan? If not, 
please let me know.

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