Re: [Xen-devel] Status of 4.13

[Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:39:14AM -0800, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:38 AM Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> >
> > On 21/11/2019 17:31, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:06 PM Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
> > >>
> > >> 1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
> > >>     I'm not quite sure whether the currently debated patch of Andrew is
> > >>     fixing the problem. If not, do we know what is missing or how to
> > >>     address the issue? If yes, could we please come to an agreement?
> > >>     As an alternative: any thoughts about ignoring this test failure for
> > >>     4.13-RC3 (IOW: doing a force push)?
> > >>
> > >> 2. Ryzen/Rome failures with Windows guests:
> > >>     What is the currently planned way to address the problem? Who is
> > >>     working on that?
> > >>
> > >> 3. Pending patches for 4.13:
> > >>     Could I please have feedback which patches tagged as "for-4.13" are
> > >>     fixing real regressions or issues? I don't want to take any patches
> > >>     not fixing real problems after RC3, and I hope to be able to get a
> > >>     push rather sooner than later to be able to let Ian cut RC3.
> > >>
> > >> 4. Are there any blockers for 4.13 other than 1. and 2. (apart of any
> > >>     pending XSAs)?
> > > Any chance the efi=no-rs regression can be added to the list? I understand
> > > that I'm still on the hook to provide more details (I promise to do it on 
> > > Fri
> > > when I get to my lab to actually have a serial console on all these 
> > > boxes).
> > > At the same time this is a pretty serious regression for an entire class 
> > > of
> > > devices where Xen was perfectly happy even during RC1.
> >
> > https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=534f9e29ce28580892b3856036b5e5cd805667cc
> > has been committed.  It is in staging, but not in master yet (because
> > master is blocked by my regression in 1).
> 
> I'll make sure to test it on Fri, but here's where I'm lost -- my
> understanding that
> activation of this patch requires a special build flag to be passed.
> Which means,
> we're still very much in a regresses state when it comes to building
> out-of-the-box,
> no?

No, there are two thing:
1. A bug triggered by efi=no-rs flag - fixed in the above commit
2. A second commit making efi=no-rs unnecessary on some machines - this
is what require build flag (CONFIG_EFI_SET_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_MAP=y).

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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