Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 27016: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 27016: regressions - 
FAIL"):
> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 10:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > From the looks of it this failure is persistent (seen in all three flights
> > over the weekend), pointing at qemu and USB. Not sure who to
> > ask to look into this, not the least because none of the rather
> > many pending changes appear to be an immediate candidate.
> > Perhaps we ought to wait for the bisector to get going on it...
> 
> The bisector is close to fingering the big upstream qemu merge. Stefano
> and Anthony are investigating and Ian J was looking into perhaps doing
> an adhoc bisect of the upstream branch, but last I heard picking a
> baseline was looking problematic.

Our options at this stage are:

 * Continue to try to debug it, blocking other trees in the meantime.

 * Force push xen-unstable (and other affected trees of which there
   will probably be quite a few).  That will turn this failure from a
   blocking regression into an allowable failure.  This will allow
   other work to continue but may take the pressure off trying to fix
   it.

 * Revert the merge in qemu-upstream-unstable.git.  This will return
   us to qemu 1.6.0.

11:37 <anthonyper> Diziet, I did not find any obvious bug with qemu
                   2.0. All I found is the guest that take about 1 or
                   2 min to respond again

Stefano says that this is a decision for the release manager, and I'm
inclined to concur.

(If a force push is called for I will do it.  I can also help with
reverting the merge if that's what's decided.)

Ian.

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