Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 59040: regressions - FAIL

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 02:37:31PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 14:23 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> 
> > I saw this bug since the introduction of amd64-i386 stubdom test case.
> > Now it looks like intermittent, i.e. we failed at the beginning, passed
> > at some point, now it failed again.
> 
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/xen-unstable.html
> gives the history of it.
> 
> It looks as if italia* and chardonnay* might be susceptible but really I
> don't think there is sufficient information to draw any particular
> conclusion wrt the frequency of this bug or whether it might be host
> specific or not, since the passes on other hosts are general singletons.
> 

Note that we do have one pass vs five fails on italia0. The same goes
for chardonay0 (one pass vs four fails). It's really weird.

> The 64-bit dom0 case is at
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/xen-unstable.html
> I'm not sure what, if anything, it tells us though. It does look to be
> more less prone to errors (it having now hit merlot notwithstanding,
> although it seems to reliably pass the install phase there).
> 
> One potentially interesting case is that in the 32-bit dom0 case the
> stubdom is also 32-bit, while in the other case the stubdom is 64-bit.
> 
> I'm not convinced using a 32-bit stubdom is the right choice, but I
> suppose it ought to work.
> 

Yeah, it ought to work. But making it actually work requires much
effort. I would say let's mark that failure none blocking for the
moment.

Wei.

> Ian.
> 

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