Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 15401: regressions - FAIL

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 04.02.13 at 15:44, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 14:39 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 04.02.13 at 15:22, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 15401: 
> regressions - 
>> > FAIL"):
>> >> On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 11:17 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> > >>> On 04.02.13 at 12:06, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 11:44 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> >> > >> Under the circumstances it's not clear that the current staging is 
>> >> > >> any
>> >> > >> worse than non-staging.  I think we should push the revision reported
>> >> > >> in this test (which was otherwise OK according to the tester) to
>> >> > >> non-staging, with a manual "hg push".
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > This sounds like a good idea.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Wouldn't that set us up for the same problem again when the next
>> >> > testing round fails here again?
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, that's true.
>> > 
>> > No.  Because the problem is essentially a fluke pass, not a fluke
>> > fail.
>> 
>> I'm not sure - previously, iirc, we had inconsistent successes and
>> failures of this test (and I think another one or two). Now we
>> appear to have run into a consistent failure state, so something
>> must have changed.
>> 
>> Luckily there is an indication from Olaf that rather than reverting,
>> applying the remaining pieces of the broken up RTC emulation
>> changes (which I didn't post formally yet, mainly in the hope to
>> get a push first, considering that these bits were what originally
>> caused regressions when applied as a single monolithic change -
>> and with a bug fixed only after I split things apart - late in the
>> 4.2 cycle) unbreaks what he reported broken.
>> 
>> I could certainly post that patch right away, but I'd like to give
>> it a little more time to see whether Olaf can confirm his initial
>> findings, and because with that I'm less certain that the test
>> failure really is to be attributed to the RTC emulation changes
>> at all.
> 
> Based on <1359987978.7743.56.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I don't think
> the RTC changes are to blame, since Ian says the baseline was
> 5af4f2ab06f3 which is before then.

Okay - I'm certainly not opposed to a manual push.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel