Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable-smoke test] 105283: regressions - trouble: broken/fail/pass

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/02/2017 09:52 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 02.02.17 at 15:09, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 02/02/17 13:56, osstest service owner wrote:
>>> flight 105283 xen-unstable-smoke real [real]
>>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/105283/ 
>>>
>>> Regressions :-(
>>>
>>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>>> including tests which could not be run:
>>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-i386  6 xen-boot     fail REGR. vs. 
>>> 105218
>>>  test-amd64-amd64-libvirt      6 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 
>>> 105218
>> From
>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/105283/test-amd64-amd64-xl- 
>> qemuu-debianhvm-i386/serial-elbling1.log
>> around Feb  2 12:33:05.733614
>>
>> (XEN) CPU Vendor: Intel, Family 6 (0x6), Model 62 (0x3e), Stepping 4
>> (raw 000306e4)
>> (XEN) found SMP MP-table at 000fe710
>> (XEN) DMI 2.7 present.
>> (XEN) Using APIC driver bigsmp
>> (XEN) Assertion 'vm_low[t] == vm_top[t] || !test_bit(vm_low[t], 
>> vm_bitmap(t))' failed at vmap.c:67
> After discussion on irc I've pushed a partial revert, adding a
> comment to hopefully guard against making the same mistake
> again later.

Sorry about that. How come I never hit this? Because it seems that it
should always fail.

And secondly, you still don't think adding vm_ready() is worth it?

-boris


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