Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 10481: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 10481: regressions - 
FAIL"):
> I think "xl trigger <dom> power" would be what is wanted here -- e.g.
> send an ACPI power event. It could be argued that xl shutdown could do
> this automatically?

libxl_domain_shutdown should do it automatically for HVM guests with
no PV drivers.

Ian.

> No active link message again but this time the guest says:
>         For info, please visit https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/
>         
>         SIOCSIFADDR: No such device
>         eth0: ERROR while getting interface flags: No such device
>         eth0: ERROR while getting interface flags: No such device
>         Bind socket to interface: No such device
>         Failed to bring up eth0.
>         done.
>         Cleaning up temporary files....
> 
> If we could preserve a guest in that state and login it might prove
> informative. My guess would either be a missing/faulty VF driver or udev
> renaming things.

> >  test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check             fail  never 
> > pass
> >  test-i386-i386-win           16 leak-check/check             fail   never 
> > pass
> >  test-amd64-i386-win-vcpus1   16 leak-check/check             fail   never 
> > pass
> >  test-amd64-i386-win          16 leak-check/check             fail   never 
> > pass
> 
> These all leaked a load of /var/lib/xen/qemu-resume.N. This should be
> quick & easy to fix, I'll have a look.

These are all xend, of course...

> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install fail in 10480 like 
> > 10474
> >  test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3  7 windows-install      fail in 10480 like 
> > 10474
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install      fail in 10480 like 
> > 10474
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install     fail in 10480 like 
> > 10474
> >  test-amd64-i386-win           7 windows-install       fail in 10480 like 
> > 10473
> 
> These don't appear to have failed per the grid at
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/10481/ ?
> 
> e.g. test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 appears to have failed at
> guest-stop instead (and indeed is also listed above in that capacity)

Perhaps the heading

> > Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking,
> > including regressions (tests previously passed) regarded as allowable:

is slightly misleading, but it does say "fail in 10480".  Ie it passed
in 10481 but failed in 10480 which tested the same changeset.

> This appears to be reporting a failure in a previous run, part of the
> heisenbug detector? It might be nice to put those in a separate section
> or to include some indication as the the criteria being evaluated (e.g.
> are we waiting for a 3rd test to tiebreak?)

These are "not blocking" so they don't prevent a push.

I see we got a push in 10486...

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel