Re: [Xen-devel] staging-4.6 seems to be broken

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 14.05.18 at 15:46, <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: staging-4.6 seems to be broken"):
>> On 11.05.18 at 17:02, <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > osstest service owner writes ("[xen-4.6-testing test] 122657: regressions 
>> > - 
> ...
>> > At least some of these are surely real regressions.
>> 
>> Are you saying that just because of the amount of failures above, or
>> because of some observations from log files or alike? I'm asking because
>> 122699 looks quite a bit better.
> 
> The former.
> 
> And yes, 122699 does look better.  This is concerning.  I wonder what
> the trouble can have been with 122657.
> 
> There have been a number of problems with some test hosts (which are
> causing lots of fallout), but that's not what's wrong with 122657.
> 
> Hrrrm.

Hrrrm indeed. 4.8 flight 12658 and 4.9 flight 12659 look about as bad as
the 4.6 one you've commented on.

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel