Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 33399: regressions - FAIL

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 14/01/15 10:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.01.15 at 11:33, <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> flight 33399 xen-unstable real [real]
>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/33399/ 
>>
>> Regressions :-(
>>
>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>> including tests which could not be run:
>>  test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-amd64  8 guest-start            fail REGR. vs. 
>> 33112
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  7 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. vs. 
>> 33112
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64 7 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. 
>> vs. 33112
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64 7 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. 
>> vs. 33112
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64  7 windows-install    fail REGR. vs. 
>> 33112
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install          fail REGR. vs. 
>> 33112
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64  7 windows-install    fail REGR. vs. 
>> 33112
> Most if not all of these are falling over 07a6aa869b ("x86/HVM:
> make hvm_efer_valid() honor guest features"), which I'm therefore
> going to revert as I don't have time right now to investigate (and
> I also don't immediately see why I wouldn't have seen this in my
> own testing).

I have several debug patches I have used in the past to identify the
before, after and the bit(s) Xen objects to with these validation
routines.  I was looking to find some tuits to get them suitable for
upstream, and perhaps this is a good enough reason.

~Andrew


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