Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 26421: regressions - FAIL

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 23.05.14 at 13:21, <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> flight 26421 xen-unstable real [real]
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/26421/ 
> 
> Regressions :-(
> 
> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> including tests which could not be run:
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  9 guest-saverestore  fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 12 guest-localmigrate.2 fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3  7 windows-install      fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3-vcpus1 7 windows-install fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install      fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 7 windows-install fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install     fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3   7 windows-install           fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3  7 windows-install     fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3  7 windows-install           fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install     fail REGR. vs. 
> 26361

So looking at the BSOD here, I'm afraid this is due to the hvmloader
changes. As can be seen only WinXP has a problem with this, so I
wonder whether - with support for it having ended - we really still
need to support it. If we do, I guess for now the only option is to
revert (until I can find time to try out alternatives, like having
available two templates - one with and one without a high PCI
range, returning the one with only if that region isn't empty - or
see whether the element count in the block could by dynamically
modified, allowing us to strip off the final field).

Jan


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