[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: broken/fail/pass


  • To: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 13:33:18 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jgross@xxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBFOMcBYBCACgGjqjoGvbEouQZw/ToiBg9W98AlM2QHV+iNHsEs7kxWhKMjrioyspZKOB ycWxw3ie3j9uvg9EOB3aN4xiTv4qbnGiTr3oJhkB1gsb6ToJQZ8uxGq2kaV2KL9650I1SJve dYm8Of8Zd621lSmoKOwlNClALZNew72NjJLEzTalU1OdT7/i1TXkH09XSSI8mEQ/ouNcMvIJ NwQpd369y9bfIhWUiVXEK7MlRgUG6MvIj6Y3Am/BBLUVbDa4+gmzDC9ezlZkTZG2t14zWPvx XP3FAp2pkW0xqG7/377qptDmrk42GlSKN4z76ELnLxussxc7I2hx18NUcbP8+uty4bMxABEB AAHNHkp1ZXJnZW4gR3Jvc3MgPGpncm9zc0BzdXNlLmRlPsLAeQQTAQIAIwUCU4xw6wIbAwcL CQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJELDendYovxMvi4UH/Ri+OXlObzqMANruTd4N zmVBAZgx1VW6jLc8JZjQuJPSsd/a+bNr3BZeLV6lu4Pf1Yl2Log129EX1KWYiFFvPbIiq5M5 kOXTO8Eas4CaScCvAZ9jCMQCgK3pFqYgirwTgfwnPtxFxO/F3ZcS8jovza5khkSKL9JGq8Nk czDTruQ/oy0WUHdUr9uwEfiD9yPFOGqp4S6cISuzBMvaAiC5YGdUGXuPZKXLpnGSjkZswUzY d9BVSitRL5ldsQCg6GhDoEAeIhUC4SQnT9SOWkoDOSFRXZ+7+WIBGLiWMd+yKDdRG5RyP/8f 3tgGiB6cyuYfPDRGsELGjUaTUq3H2xZgIPfOwE0EU4xwFgEIAMsx+gDjgzAY4H1hPVXgoLK8 B93sTQFN9oC6tsb46VpxyLPfJ3T1A6Z6MVkLoCejKTJ3K9MUsBZhxIJ0hIyvzwI6aYJsnOew cCiCN7FeKJ/oA1RSUemPGUcIJwQuZlTOiY0OcQ5PFkV5YxMUX1F/aTYXROXgTmSaw0aC1Jpo w7Ss1mg4SIP/tR88/d1+HwkJDVW1RSxC1PWzGizwRv8eauImGdpNnseneO2BNWRXTJumAWDD pYxpGSsGHXuZXTPZqOOZpsHtInFyi5KRHSFyk2Xigzvh3b9WqhbgHHHE4PUVw0I5sIQt8hJq 5nH5dPqz4ITtCL9zjiJsExHuHKN3NZsAEQEAAcLAXwQYAQIACQUCU4xwFgIbDAAKCRCw3p3W KL8TL0P4B/9YWver5uD/y/m0KScK2f3Z3mXJhME23vGBbMNlfwbr+meDMrJZ950CuWWnQ+d+ Ahe0w1X7e3wuLVODzjcReQ/v7b4JD3wwHxe+88tgB9byc0NXzlPJWBaWV01yB2/uefVKryAf AHYEd0gCRhx7eESgNBe3+YqWAQawunMlycsqKa09dBDL1PFRosF708ic9346GLHRc6Vj5SRA UTHnQqLetIOXZm3a2eQ1gpQK9MmruO86Vo93p39bS1mqnLLspVrL4rhoyhsOyh0Hd28QCzpJ wKeHTd0MAWAirmewHXWPco8p1Wg+V+5xfZzuQY0f4tQxvOpXpt4gQ1817GQ5/Ed/wsDtBBgB CAAgFiEEhRJncuj2BJSl0Jf3sN6d1ii/Ey8FAlrd8NACGwIAgQkQsN6d1ii/Ey92IAQZFggA HRYhBFMtsHpB9jjzHji4HoBcYbtP2GO+BQJa3fDQAAoJEIBcYbtP2GO+TYsA/30H/0V6cr/W V+J/FCayg6uNtm3MJLo4rE+o4sdpjjsGAQCooqffpgA+luTT13YZNV62hAnCLKXH9n3+ZAgJ RtAyDWk1B/0SMDVs1wxufMkKC3Q/1D3BYIvBlrTVKdBYXPxngcRoqV2J77lscEvkLNUGsu/z W2pf7+P3mWWlrPMJdlbax00vevyBeqtqNKjHstHatgMZ2W0CFC4hJ3YEetuRBURYPiGzuJXU pAd7a7BdsqWC4o+GTm5tnGrCyD+4gfDSpkOT53S/GNO07YkPkm/8J4OBoFfgSaCnQ1izwgJQ jIpcG2fPCI2/hxf2oqXPYbKr1v4Z1wthmoyUgGN0LPTIm+B5vdY82wI5qe9uN6UOGyTH2B3p hRQUWqCwu2sqkI3LLbTdrnyDZaixT2T0f4tyF5Lfs+Ha8xVMhIyzNb1byDI5FKCb
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 11:33:26 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 07/06/18 12:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: 
> broken/fail/pass"):
>> The same host (italia1) that had the failed xtf test yesterday. The two
>> failures are looking very similar to me.
>>
>> Again the question: should we do a force push?
> 
> I think the final decision is up to you, but I would reason along
> these lines:
> 
> The point of the push gate is to stop regressions making it into
> master.  However, osstest cannot currently handle heisenbugs well, so
> it punts: when something is identified as a heisenbug, it is not
> considered a regression.
> 
> 
> There is this failure in 123831
> (3960f3a52346348e6b0306f65d19375612bd35b9, staging)
> 
>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-5 <job status> broken
>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-5 4 host-install(4) broken pass in 123670
> 
> This is an infrastructure problem.  It means that that xtf test didn't
> run.  However, each flight runs the same battery of tests on 5
> different hosts; so identical tests were run on other hosts.  We're
> just missing 20% of the XTF test host diversity we would have had.
> 
> So on that basis a force push is justified, because we can see that
> the failure in 123831 does not really give any reason to suspect a
> regression and the test coverage was only slightly reduced compared to
> what was planned.
> 
> 
> However, there are these failures in 123799
> (06f542f8f2e446c01bd0edab51e9450af7f6e05b, master)
> 
>  test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale
>    5 host-ping-check-native   fail
>    REGR. vs. 123323
> 
> This is very likely the known arndale bug and not a cause for concern.
> 
>  test-amd64-i386-libvirt-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm
>    14 guest-saverestore.2 fail
>    REGR. vs. 123323b
> 
> This failure is being discussed in email.  Obviously this is not a
> regression from master, since it's *in* master.  But it might be a
> release critical bug.

I'm quite sure it is. OTOH I suspect it should have been addressed
in 4.10 already...

Thinking more about it I believe this is the right time to try
fixing that bug. In case there is no objection I'd like to declare it
as being release critical.

> If it is a release critical bug then branching (and consequently
> opening staging again) might entrench the bug, both by allowing
> effort to go to "shiny new stuff", and by making it harder to fix as
> staging diverges from staging-4.11.

Right.

> So I think overall, I would say this justifies a force push but if the
> reason for wanting a force push was to enable branching, there is an
> actual decision to be made, which is a matter of judgement.

Thanks for the detailed answer, which is more or less following the same
line of thoughts I've had.

So lets wait and see whether there is progress catching the domain save
bug.

Are you fine then to lift the current commit moratorium?


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.