Re: [Xen-devel] [rumpuserxen baseline test] 26359: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 01:08 +0100, xen.org wrote:
> "Old" tested version had not actually been tested; therefore in this
> flight we test it, rather than a new candidate.  The baseline, if
> any, is the most recent actually tested revision.
> 
> flight 26359 rumpuserxen real [real]
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/26359/
> 
> Failures :-/ but no regressions.
> 
> Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
>  test-amd64-i386-rumpuserxen-i386  1 xen-build-check(1)           blocked  n/a
>  test-amd64-amd64-rumpuserxen-i386  1 xen-build-check(1)           blocked  
> n/a
>  build-i386-rumpuserxen        4 rumpuserxen-build            fail   never 
> pass

This set of tests suggests that rump kernels are i386 only, or we are
only using i386 rumpkernels, is that right?

I've always had it in mind that in the absence of other requirements
(e.g. pvgrub kexec) stubdoms would be better off being 64 bit, since
they can take advantage of the larger address space and being single
address space applications don't suffer from syscall overhead.

Ian.


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