Re: [Xen-devel] [qemu-upstream-unstable test] 12436: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [qemu-upstream-unstable test] 12436: 
regressions - FAIL"):
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 16:54 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This test failure is not related to the single commit made to the
> > qemu-upstream-unstable tree, since this test doesn't actually even use
> > qemu-upstream-unstable.  (It's a bug in the test schedule generator
> > that it even considers this test relevant; it should not run it.)
> 
> So actually the upstream qemu is actually passing its testing fairly
> consistently? Assuming some of the other tests do actually test it.

No, that's not a valid conclusion.  The tests which do test upstream
qemu aren't doing very well - but they aren't blocking pushes of
upstream qemu because the baseline is another version of upstream
qemu.

> > I have taken a look at the logs.  I think it is a genuine failure
> > showing up a real bug, but the bug is in xen-unstable or
> > qemu-xen-unstable or Jeremy's Linux 2.6.32:
> 
> Do we see run this sequence in the flights which are supposed to be
> testing those or only here?

Others too.

> If we do run it elsewhere then we wouldn't be papering over the issue by
> removing it from this test (where it doesn't belong).

Indeed.  I plan to do this but I have a other (rather fiddly) stuff
queued up, related to testing other branches of upstream Linux, which
I'm trying to get through.

Ian.

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