Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 76919: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2016-01-06 at 11:14 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-01-05 at 02:26 +0000, osstest service owner wrote:
> > flight 76919 xen-unstable real [real]
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/76919/
> > 
> > Regressions :-(
> > 
> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> > including tests which could not be run:
> > Âtest-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 9 debian-hvm-
> > install fail REGR. vs. 66879
> 
> ISTR someone (Wei?) at some point saying that a 32-bit stubdom (as used
> here) isn't actually something we wish to support. Shall we either drop
> this test altogether or mark it as allow? Or will someone investigate why
> it apparently can't find its disks.
> 
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/xen-unstable.html

4.6 exhibits the same pattern, as do linux-3.14 and 3.16:
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/xen-4.6-testing.html
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/linux-3.14.html
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/linux-3.16.html

(more or less, 3.14 seems to have never gotten lucky)

But recent linux 3.18 and 4.1 results look relatively positive:
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/linux-3.18.html
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/linux-4.1.html

Could this have been a dom0 kernel issue, previously masked by merlot*
specific issues, which is since fixed (or less prevalent at least)?

Ian.

> seems to suggest it has a very low probability of success (both merlot
> and
> italia failed dozens of times before passing)
> 
> Nothing in the xen.git rangeÂbf925a9f1254..8e4d18e113c9 looks especially
> relevant.
> 
> Bisection couldn't reproduce the basis pass:
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/bisect/xen-unstable/t
> est-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm.debian-hvm-
> install.html
> 
> Ian.

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