[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945: regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]

On 18/01/2016 07:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 15.01.16 at 18:42, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 17:24 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 15/01/16 17:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15.01.16 at 18:06, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>  * I don't have a clear design proposal for the above but I think Doug
>>>>>>    can probably provide one.  I'm hoping this is more a matter of
>>>>>>    thinking carefully than of extensive build system programming!
>>>>> I think we should:
>>>>> 1) Move /usr/lib/debug/xen-4.7-unstable.config to /boot. I previously
>>>>> didn't care about what path it was, but the usecase of having grub be able
>>>>> to react to the config (see below) is a strong reason to have it in /boot
>>>>> IMHO. Jan has said he won't veto such a change, AFAICT everyone else is
>>>>> happy with it.
>>>>> 2) Assume that grub (specifically the patch in 
>>>>> http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs 
>>>>> /?43420 and as used by osstest today) will at some point be modified to
>>>>> look at /boot/xenconfig-$version to decide whether to create an XSM entry
>>>>> or not instead of the presence of /boot/xenpolicy-$version. This step
>>>>> belongs here logically but chronologically could come much later since
>>>>> osstest will do the right thing even if there is a spurious
>>>>> /boot/xenpolicy-$version file (which is to say it will ignore the spurious
>>>>> entry and boot the right thing).
>>>>> 3) Have tools/* always build the FLASK+XSM tools _and_ the FLASK policy 
>>>>> and
>>>>> to always install both. Any related configure options can go away and we 
>>>>> no
>>>>> longer need to worry about synchronising the configuration of the tools 
>>>>> and
>>>>> xen trees, this is desirable because we would prefer to have one set of
>>>>> tools which gracefully handles differing hypervisor configurations over
>>>>> needing different sets of tools (FLASK+XSM was one of the few exceptions 
>>>>> to
>>>>> that rule AFAICT).
>>>>> I think with this plan there is no need to modify osstest.git, since it
>>>>> already does the right thing (which is, it sets XSM for Xen builds, which
>>>>> in turn enables FLASK and it does nothing for tools/* which is correct 
>>>>> once
>>>>> #3 above has happened).
>>>>> The only downside is a spurious /boot/xenpolicy-$version installed when 
>>>>> the
>>>>> corresponding Xen binary doesn't support XSM, however given the assumption
>>>>> in #2 (which implies the user will never see a spurious grub entry, which
>>>>> is the important thing) and the fact that it avoids the complexity of
>>>>> having tools/* rely in some way on xen/.config I think that is a 
>>>>> worthwhile
>>>>> trade-off.
>>>>> Hopefully this simplifies a bunch of the arguments we have been having and
>>>>> provides a path forwards?
>>>>> Objections?
>>>> My opinion on 1 and 2 is known; 3 seems like a good step to me.
>>> FWIW, I also prefer option 3.  It lends itself better to a toolstack
>>> which functions in the same way, irrespective of hypervisor configuration.
>> To be clear: These are not options, they are steps in a plan, to be
>> followed in order.
> "Not options" - indeed, but "in order"? At least 3 seems independent
> of both 1 and 2.

3 is required to unblock OSSTest and needs to happen ASAP.

That is the absolute priority at this point.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.