Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112: regressions - FAIL

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 27.11.15 at 13:02, <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >  build-i386 5 xen-build fail in 65062 REGR. vs. 63449
> 
> This is completely explained below, I think.

I can't see the connection to any other (failed) test here (also not
in flight 65136's results, which have just come in). There were many
blocked tests in 65062, but the two build-i386-* look to be
independent tests, and test-* ones shouldn't block build-* ones aiui.

> > > >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 16 
> > > > guest-localmigrate/x10 fail in 65088 REGR. vs. 63449
> 
> As explained below, in 65112 this step did not run because the earlier
> step `guest-localmigrate' failed:
>   
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/65112/test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/info.html
>  
> 
> The fact that we have both `guest-localmigrate' and
> `guest-localmigrate/x10' isn't ideal because it hides from the
> heisenbug compensator that these are actually the same underlying
> test.  Maybe it is time now to rename `guest-localmigrate/x10' to
> `guest-localmigrate' and abolish the latter.

Independent of that, does it make sense for a dependent test to
not be considered failing intermittently when the test it depends on
is?

Jan



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