Re: [Xen-devel] [TestDay] VMX test report for Xen 4.5.0-rc1

["Hu, Robert" <robert.hu@xxxxxxxxx>]

Best Regards,
Robert Ho

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:49 PM
> To: Hu, Robert
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> Subject: Re: [TestDay] VMX test report for Xen 4.5.0-rc1
> 
> >>> On 12.11.14 at 07:58, <robert.hu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 2. Failed to hotplug a VT-d device with XEN4.5-RC1
> >   http://bugzilla-archived.xenproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1894
> 
> First of all I'm not sure it is really useful to use the old, discontinued
> bugzilla to report bugs. I think it would be much easier if you reported
> them directly (and individually) to the mailing list, with or without
> triggering the creation of bugs in the new tracking system.
> 
First of all, thanks for your attention.
I think it shall be stored somewhere and be tracked, rather than one by one 
mail thread. To follow your suggestion, I would next time in addition send each 
bug per mail, with descriptions contained.
> As to the specific bug above - nothing is being said on whether a
> driver was still attached to the device at the time it was being
> hot-unplugged; if there was, I'm not sure what the expected
> behavior would be (i.e. on real hardware).
As http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_4.5_RC1_test_instructions says, we as QA 
engineer "Report any bugs / missing functionality / unexpected results. " Of 
course, we would help provide as much debug information as we can. 
The expected behavior shall be no error output observed here.
> 
> > 3. Fail to hot add multi devices to guest
> >   http://bugzilla-archived.xenproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1895
> 
> The description in contradicting itself - title and parts of it say
> the operation failed, but "Bug detailed description" says "Checking
> inside guest VM, the VT-D device is attached to guest VM actually,
> and works fine."
Yes, it looks ambiguous. Shall have refined the description title more 
precisely.
> 
> > 4. Not all PFs are available if assign multi VT-d devices to Wndows guest VM
> >   http://bugzilla-archived.xenproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1896
> 
> I think we were told the other day that pass-through of PFs is
> not being supported by Intel. What's the purpose of reporting
> bugs there?
This bug was filed before the certainness about PF issue, so this one still 
follow previous perception. I shall have redefined this bug. Sorry for 
confusing you. You can ignore this bug itself.
But there is still another issue incurred if we follow the new perception, i.e. 
xl tool stack should forbid user to assign PF or if you decide to allow user 
doing so, some further supporting work shall be done.
> 
> > 7. Error msg occurred after attaching multi SR-IOV VF device to running 
> > guest
> >   http://bugzilla-archived.xenproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1899
> 
> This reads (except for the title) the same as 1895. Am I overlooking
> something here?
The 2 are very similar, this bug is of VF assignment, 1895 refers to similar 
operation on PFs (only vt-d device, no SR-IOV VFs involved).
From perspective of QA bug reporting, we encourage tester to report bug as 
specific/concrete as possible; such situation is allowed that 2 (or more) bugs 
are finally found same root cause after developer looking into; but it is out 
of reporter's scope to assert this.
> 
> Jan


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