Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable baseline test] 30923: tolerable FAIL

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 26.10.14 at 10:36, <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Old" tested version had not actually been tested; therefore in this
> flight we test it, rather than a new candidate.  The baseline, if
> any, is the most recent actually tested revision.
> 
> flight 30923 xen-unstable real [real]
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/30923/ 
> 
> Failures :-/ but no regressions.
> 
> Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
>  test-amd64-i386-rumpuserxen-i386  8 guest-start                fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-rumpuserxen-amd64  8 guest-start              fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-amd  7 redhat-install               fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-amd  7 redhat-install           fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu  9 guest-start                  fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-credit2    9 guest-start                  fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl           9 guest-start                  fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl            9 guest-start                  fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-amd64  8 guest-start                 fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-intel  7 redhat-install         fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel  7 redhat-install               fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64  7 debian-hvm-install fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-i386  8 guest-start                  fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd  7 redhat-install           fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64  7 debian-hvm-install fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel  7 redhat-install         fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  7 debian-hvm-install      fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64 7 debian-hvm-install fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf      9 guest-start                  fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf-pin  9 guest-start                  fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64 7 debian-hvm-install fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  7 debian-hvm-install     fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-pair         16 guest-start/debian           fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install           fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install    fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3  7 windows-install           fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64  7 windows-install         fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install    fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64  7 windows-install        fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64  7 windows-install        fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3   7 windows-install              fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1  7 windows-install          fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install          fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3  7 windows-install              fail   like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64  7 windows-install              fail  like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64  7 windows-install         fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3  7 windows-install          fail like 
> 30906
>  test-amd64-amd64-pair        16 guest-start/debian           fail   like 
> 30906

Considering that this is a baseline test, won't this result in pushes
as soon as no less than the set of failures occurs in a future run
(like would almost have been the case with flight 30959)?

Independent of that - having looked at a couple of failures, I
didn't really manage to spot what is going wrong here in such a
massive way. Was there an infrastructure issue over the
weekend?

Jan

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