WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-xl

To: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-xl
From: "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:37:31 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:38:29 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CA6B0098.1F224%keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <BC00F5384FCFC9499AF06F92E8B78A9E247D7F796C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CA6B0098.1F224%keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcxWoY12hTKBTf0U+ky9wLsIeXVntgCTXdagAASvIGoAALdKkA==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-xl
Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 14:03, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> If it's really this changeset it's a bit weird. It would have to be
>>> due to the more permissive table validation causing us to enable
>>> ACPI ERST support based on a bad BIOS table, or a table which for
>>> some reason we're not supporting properly, or a class of machines
>>> (e.g., AMD) for which our ERST logic is not currently implemented
>>> properly. 
>>> 
>>> Does reverting just the change to erst_check_table() fix the
>>> regression on the affected test boxes? What about the
>>> similar-looking boot failure that you see, Jeremy?
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>> 
>> It looks strange to me. Native linux also update it to work well at
>> different bios platform. We have tested it at our 'old' and a 'new'
>> platform, it works well with the patch. I'm not sure why it cannot
>> work at the machine you test. 
> 
> It's obviously a latent bug in our handling of that table, which is
> uncovered only when that table-validation check is relaxed to permit
> parsing of the table on a much broader range of machines. Perhaps we
> can work with you to run some out-of-tree patches to gather useful
> tracing information on failing machines?
> 
>  -- Keir

Sure, and of course thanks for help me co-debug it :)

Seems it's not a quite urgent bug, so may I firstly complete Xen RAS core error 
recovery patch?
I will have vacation for 2 weeks from Aug 19, before that I hope to make core 
error recovery patch done.
When I come back, I will fix this bug ASAP, is it OK for your plan? If not, 
please let me know.

Thanks,
Jinsong
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel