Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wei Liu writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete 
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm"):
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:55:52PM +0000, osstest service owner wrote:
> > branch xen-unstable
> > xen branch xen-unstable
> > job test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm
> > test debian-hvm-install
...
> >       libxc: split x86 HVM setup_guest into smaller logical functions
> > 
> >       This is just a preparatory change to clean up the code in setup_guest.
> >       Should not introduce any functional changes.
...
> > For bisection revision-tuple graph see:
> >    
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/bisect/xen-unstable/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm.debian-hvm-install.html
> > Revision IDs in each graph node refer, respectively, to the Trees above.
...
> The bug has been fixed in staging and we already got a push.
> 
> I'm not quite sure why the bisector thought this commit was the culprit,

When you say "the bug", which bug do you mean ?  I think the bisector
is fingering this commit because of the types bug introduced in that
commit and fixed in
  "[PATCH v2] libxc: fix the types used in xc_dom_image to build HVM guests"

> but I wouldn't spend time on this...

I need to know if the bisector is producing confusing or wrong output
:-).

Ian.

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