Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
> Thanks. The attachment didn't git-am but I managed to make a tree
> with it in (but a bogus commit message).
>
> I have a repro of 165218 test-arm64-arm64-libvirt-raw (that's the last
> xen
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
> Thanks. The attachment didn't git-am but I managed to make a tree
> with it in (but a bogus commit message).
>
> I have a repro of 165218 test-arm64-arm64-libvirt-raw (that's the last
> xen
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
> Ian, for your setting up of a one-off flight (as just talked about),
> you can find the patch at
> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-09/msg01691.html
> (and perhaps in your mailbox).
On 23.09.2021 04:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> We could push the patch in the branch we have. However the Linux we use is
> not fairly old (I think I did a push last year) and not even the latest
> stable.
I don't think that's a problem here - this looks to be 5.4.17-ish, which
the patch should be
On 23.09.2021 03:10, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL&qu
Hi,
Sorry for the formatting.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, 06:10 Stefano Stabellini,
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >> Jan Beulich writes (&
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
> >>> As per
> >>>
> >>&
On 22.09.2021 14:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm not sure, though, that I fully understand the design principles
> behind non-order-0 allocations, and memory sizing, and so on. Your
> earlier mail suggeted there may not be a design principle, and that
> anything relying on non-order-0 atomic
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
> Is the Dom0 kernel used here a distro one or our own build of one of
> the upstream trees? In the latter case I'd expect propagation to be
> quite a bit faster than in the former case.
It's our own b
On 22.09.2021 13:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
>> On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>> Sep 15 14:44:55.598538 [ 1613.419061]
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
> On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>> Sep 15 14:44:55.598538 [ 1613.419061] DMA32: 2788*4kB (UMEC) 890*8kB
> >>> (UM
On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
>>> As per
>>>
>>> Sep 15 14:44:55.502598 [ 1613.322585] Mem-Info:
>>>
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
> > As per
> >
> > Sep 15 14:44:55.502598 [ 1613.322585] Mem-Info:
> > Sep 15 14:44:55.502643 [ 1613.324918] active_anon:5639 inactive_anon:158
On 20.09.2021 17:44, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
>> As per
>>
>> Sep 15 14:44:55.502598 [ 1613.322585] Mem-Info:
>> Sep 15 14:44:55.502643 [ 1613.324918] active_anon:5639 inactive_anon:1585
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"):
> As per
>
> Sep 15 14:44:55.502598 [ 1613.322585] Mem-Info:
> Sep 15 14:44:55.502643 [ 1613.324918] active_anon:5639 inactive_anon:15857
> isolated_anon:0
> Sep 15 14:44:55.514480 [ 161
On 16.09.2021 06:06, osstest service owner wrote:
> flight 164996 xen-unstable real [real]
> flight 165002 xen-unstable real-retest [real]
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/164996/
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/165002/
>
> Regressions :-(
>
> Tests which did
flight 164996 xen-unstable real [real]
flight 165002 xen-unstable real-retest [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/164996/
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/165002/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be
17 matches
Mail list logo