[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Status of 4.13
- To: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Rich Persaud <persaur@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 21:49:18 -0500
- Cc: Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:49:28 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Nov 21, 2019, at 17:11, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Draft doc for the Xen 4.13 improvement:
Corrections and compatibility test reports would be welcome.
Rich 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). |
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
