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

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 11:36 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 11:28 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945:
> > regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]"):
> > > On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 02:47 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > Ugly. Could we live with that until #1 and #2 get put in place?
> > > 
> > > #1 is trivial (see below).
> > 
> > Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > > #2 is, as noted in my original mail, something which while it
> > > logically
> > > belongs between #1 and #3 could be deferred.
> > > 
> > > > Otherwise it looks very much like reverting the two Kconfig
> > > > conversion patches is the only possible solution at this point...
> > > 
> > > IMHO we should apply the patch below + Doug's patch from <1452879580-
> > > 1770-1
> > > -git-send-email-cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx> todayÂat the latest.
> > 
> > FR, this latter message is "tools: make FLASK utils build
> > unconditional".
> > 
> > With these, is osstest going to DTRT ?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> > My fear is that the appearance of the policy will cause non-XSM builds
> > to generate an XSM boot entry which will osstest might select.ÂÂBut I
> > haven't peered at the interlocking bits of code to see what will
> > happen.
> 
[...]
> So I think we can go ahead and I will turn the above into an osstest
> patch in parallel.

Ian was convinced by my argumentation here (and told me so on IRC) so I
have gone ahead and pushed this and acked + applied Doug's patch too.

Ian.

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