Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 18851: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 18851: regressions - FAIL"):
> On 02.09.13 at 17:10, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > I'm not sure why my osstest push gate didn't catch this, but the
> > regression is indeed caused by the change from Jeremy's old tree to
> > Linux 3.10.y.

It appears that the push gate didn't catch it because it's host
specific, and it got lucky and didn't run a test on that host.

> So how do we want to deal with that? Linux maintainers - any
> chance you could help out? The staging tree having been stuck
> for over a week is certainly less than ideal...

David Vrabel pointed out that more modern kernels have a different
interpretation of things like "dom0_mem=256M", and can waste lots and
lots of actual memory on pointless bookkeeping for future expansion
(which the kernel envisages but we do not).

I have changed it to "dom0_mem=256M,max:256M".  I got a push of this
change at "Wed, 4 Sep 2013 03:50:14 +0100".  I don't think any of the
test runs yet reported have used this change.

...

I have just checked the database and flights 19046 onwards are using
this new command-line option.  None of them have reported yet.  In
fact due to the backlog the system is rather clogged with runs using
the old osstest.  I'm going to manually kill those.

Ian.

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