Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77827: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

osstest service owner writes ("[xen-unstable test] 77827: regressions - FAIL"):
> flight 77827 xen-unstable real [real]
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/77827/
> 
> Regressions :-(
> 
> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> including tests which could not be run:
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 9 debian-hvm-install 
> fail REGR. vs. 66879

Looking at

  
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/xen-unstable.html

and

  
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/ALL

it seems that this test has been intermittently broken on most osstest
branches for some time.  66879 was an [un]lucky pass.  (The symptoms,
and hence the specific test step which fails, seem to vary according
to the host.)

I am therefore going to force push this.


We had a discussion on IRC.  Several people were of the opinion that
32-bit stubdom will be hard to fix and that the effort won't be worth
it.

If we are going to abandon this then we should switch to 64-bit
stubdom dm in 32-bit dom0 configurations, and certainly not any longer
build a probably-broken 32-bit stubdom dm along with the 32-bit tools.


> version targeted for testing:
>  xen                  f7347a282420a5edc74afb31e7c42c2765f24de5
> baseline version:
>  xen                  bf925a9f1254391749f569c1b8fc606036340488

I have pushed this version.

Ian.

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