Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.3-testing test] 63948: regressions - FAIL [and 1 more messages] [and 1 more messages]

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 16.11.15 at 17:00, <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.3-testing test] 63948: 
> regressions - 
> FAIL [and 1 more messages]"):
>> I wonder how easy it would be to filter out the wrong advertisement,
>> during outgoing migration, in the toolstack in 4.2.  I appreciate that
>> 4.2 is long-dead.  So maybe we should just leave it.  Users can shut
>> down and restart their guests.
> 
> For now I think the easiest fix is:
> 
> osstest service owner writes ("[xen-4.3-testing test] 64287: regressions - 
> FAIL"):
>> flight 64287 xen-4.3-testing real [real]
>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/64287/ 
>> 
>> Regressions :-(
>> 
>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>> including tests which could not be run:
>>  test-amd64-amd64-migrupgrade 21 guest-migrate/src_host/dst_host fail REGR. 
>> vs. 63212
> 
> Based on this, which is the only regression in 64287, we could force
> push this:
> 
>> version targeted for testing:
>>  xen                  fd1e4cc4d1d100337931b6f6dc50ed0b9766968a
>> baseline version:
>>  xen                  85ca813ec23c5a60680e4a13777dad530065902b
>> 
>> Last test of basis    63212  2015-10-22 10:03:01 Z   24 days
>> Failing since         63360  2015-10-29 13:39:04 Z   17 days   12 attempts
>> Testing same since    64090  2015-11-10 18:01:42 Z    5 days    3 attempts

Well, yes, but wouldn't it re-occur once it managed to run on an
Intel box again?

Jan


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