[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [linux-4.1 test] 60785: tolerable FAIL - PUSHED
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [linux-4.1 test] 60785: tolerable FAIL - PUSHED"): > 60030 is the "bad" push which uses "fail like NNNNNN-bisect" to justify > ignoring all three. For example, you mean the line in 60030's report saying test-amd64-i386-xl 13 guest-saverestore fail like 60094-bisect Well, 60094's report is contained within Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:44:28 GMT Subject: "[linux-4.1 bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-xl and says test-amd64-i386-xl 13 guest-saverestore fail baseline untested There was no build job in 60094; for Linux (build-i386-pvops) it used 59826 (ie 5cf9896d) and for Xen (build-i386) 59934 (xen.git#3a9ace01). > IIRC there was a bug in the osstest machinery (now fixed by Ian) which lead > to this, but I mention it in case I'm recalling incorrectly. I think that actually this is another problem: sg-report-flight when testing X' (with a baseline of X) can justify a failure of T(X',Y,Z) with a bisection failure of T(X,Y'',Z). If Y'' breaks T then this makes it look to sg-report-flight like T was already broken in X. The simple solution is for sg-report-flight for cr-daily-branch to to look at bisections. The more complicated one would be for sg-report-flight to compare versions of Y when looking for justifications, but I'm not sure this is desirable because it would reset the justification search each time any other tree changed. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |