Re: [Xen-devel] [BUG] win2008 guest cannot get ip through sriov

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:38:47AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 02.06.16 at 12:22, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:31:06AM +0000, Xu, Quan wrote:
> >> On May 27, 2016 10:06 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > >>> On 27.05.16 at 15:34, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 06:16:30AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> > >> >>> On 27.05.16 at 12:39, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > >> > Is this a regression? Does it work on previous versions of Xen?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think this is what was already reported by other Intel people, see
> >> > >> e.g. Quan's most recent reply:
> >> > >> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-05/msg01896.
> >> > >> html It is not clear where the problem is, and not seeing the issue
> >> > >> myself makes it hard to analyze. In any event this quite likely is a
> >> > >> regression.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > My reading of that email thread and all relevant links (including the
> >> > > KVM bug report) is that there is a regression vf driver, but not in 
> >> > > Xen.
> >> > 
> >> > Just from reading that I would tend to agree. But the report here is 
> >> > about
> >> > Win2K8.
> >> 
> >> Do you know which commit is a regression one? I try to find out the 
> > regression commit.  That may be helpful to find out the root cause.
> >> 
> >> Btw, some feedback from QA team, rhel 6.4 VM  doesn't work, but rhel 7.2 
> >> VM does.
> > 
> > Isn't this at least an indication that the guest could be buggy here?
> > It could also be both the hypervsior and guest have bugs. But we're just
> > not sure at this point.
> 
> Indeed, and (with the many fixes that went in already) I really
> suspect a combination of both, or some of the involved hypervisor
> changes having unmasked some guest issue. Regardless, I'm
> afraid this ought to be treated as a blocker for the release at
> least until we understand what the issue is. But otoh making it a
> blocker probably makes sense only if we can expect progress
> (which we haven't really made for quite long a time).
> 

This issue is on my list, but the information gathered so far isn't
convincing enough to make it a blocker.

And yes, we need meaningful progress to make it a blocker. To make it
so, commitment from various parties is needed. Let's start with setting
out things to look at, who is going to investigate what, and a possible
timeline for each item.

Jan, can you come up with a list of what sort of information you need?
And then maybe Quan and Pengtao can give an estimation on how long it
takes to gather all necessary information and move on to next stage.

Wei.

> Jan
> 

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