Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 15401: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 14:39 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 04.02.13 at 15:22, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 15401: 
> > regressions - 
> > FAIL"):
> >> On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 11:17 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> > >>> On 04.02.13 at 12:06, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 11:44 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> > >> Under the circumstances it's not clear that the current staging is any
> >> > >> worse than non-staging.  I think we should push the revision reported
> >> > >> in this test (which was otherwise OK according to the tester) to
> >> > >> non-staging, with a manual "hg push".
> >> > > 
> >> > > This sounds like a good idea.
> >> > 
> >> > Wouldn't that set us up for the same problem again when the next
> >> > testing round fails here again?
> >> 
> >> Yes, that's true.
> > 
> > No.  Because the problem is essentially a fluke pass, not a fluke
> > fail.
> 
> I'm not sure - previously, iirc, we had inconsistent successes and
> failures of this test (and I think another one or two). Now we
> appear to have run into a consistent failure state, so something
> must have changed.
> 
> Luckily there is an indication from Olaf that rather than reverting,
> applying the remaining pieces of the broken up RTC emulation
> changes (which I didn't post formally yet, mainly in the hope to
> get a push first, considering that these bits were what originally
> caused regressions when applied as a single monolithic change -
> and with a bug fixed only after I split things apart - late in the
> 4.2 cycle) unbreaks what he reported broken.
> 
> I could certainly post that patch right away, but I'd like to give
> it a little more time to see whether Olaf can confirm his initial
> findings, and because with that I'm less certain that the test
> failure really is to be attributed to the RTC emulation changes
> at all.

Based on <1359987978.7743.56.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I don't think
the RTC changes are to blame, since Ian says the baseline was
5af4f2ab06f3 which is before then.

Ian.





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