Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 137064: regressions - FAIL

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 31.05.19 at 12:33, <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> osstest service owner writes ("[xen-4.6-testing test] 137064: regressions - 
> FAIL"):
>> flight 137064 xen-4.6-testing real [real]
>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/137064/ 
>> 
>> Regressions :-(
> 
> This is all pretty bad but I think it is mostly new tests in XTF,
> incompatibility with stretch, etc.
> 
> The only reason we are running this test at all is to get various
> build fixes included in the stable-4.6 branch so that we can test
> 4.6-to-4.7 migration.
> 
> Accordingly, unless someone objects, I will force push this.

Fundamentally I don't care overly much about this old tree, but
I can't figure how you came to the "mostly new tests in XTF"
conclusion. In fact ...

>> version targeted for testing:
>>  xen                  7f54219572caced98a133072546ad890897b9827
>> baseline version:
>>  xen                  3636de3f1a9a513ebdcd77555dce0e4d451e198b
> 
>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>> including tests which could not be run:
>>  test-amd64-amd64-migrupgrade 22 guest-migrate/src_host/dst_host fail REGR. 
>> vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-xsm       7 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-amd64 11 guest-start           fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-i386 11 guest-start            fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-5       108 leak-check/check        fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-1       108 leak-check/check        fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-4       108 leak-check/check        fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-3       108 leak-check/check        fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-xtf-amd64-amd64-2       108 leak-check/check        fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792

... these are all XTF related ones, and leak-check failures imo aren't
liable to be related to "new" XTF tests. Otoh I think leak-check failures
are sufficiently "fine" to ignore, and hence aren't an argument against
a force push.

>>  test-amd64-i386-migrupgrade 22 guest-migrate/src_host/dst_host fail REGR. 
>> vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-shadow 10 debian-hvm-install fail 
>> REGR. vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64 10 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. 
>> vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64 10 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. 
>> vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 10 debian-hvm-install 
>> fail REGR. vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64 10 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. 
>> vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel 10 redhat-install   fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-libvirt-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 10 debian-hvm-install 
>> fail REGR. vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 10 debian-hvm-install 
>> fail REGR. vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-amd 10 debian-hvm-install  fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-shadow 10 debian-hvm-install fail 
>> REGR. vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64 10 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-intel 10 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64 10 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-libvirt-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 10 debian-hvm-install 
>> fail REGR. vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd 10 redhat-install     fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64 10 debian-hvm-install fail REGR. 
>> vs. 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-intel 10 redhat-install   fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-amd 10 redhat-install     fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  build-armhf                   6 xen-build                fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 10 windows-install   fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 10 windows-install  fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ws16-amd64 10 windows-install   fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 10 windows-install  fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-ws16-amd64 10 windows-install  fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ws16-amd64 10 windows-install  fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 10 windows-install   fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792
>>  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-ws16-amd64 10 windows-install   fail REGR. vs. 
>> 127792

I'm far more worried about all these guest install failures - it can't
really help to ignore them by way of doing a force push. Without
having looked, quite likely they're (almost) all the same hvmloader
issue as diagnosed on the 4.7 branch. If so, waiting for the tests
to actually succeed would seem better to me.

To give osstest some relief, would it be possible to temporarily
disable testing of the older trees (which we know won't succeed)?
They could be incrementally re-enabled from oldest onwards once
we know the -prev build issues have been addressed in the
respective N-1 tree.

Jan


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