Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: broken/fail/pass
On 07/06/18 13:58, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble:
> broken/fail/pass"):
>> Are you fine then to lift the current commit moratorium?
>
> That seems sensible, if you don't expect to be trying to branch RSN
> because of the save/restore bug.
Okay, committers, you can commit release-acked patches again.
Juergen
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: broken/fail/pass
Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble:
broken/fail/pass"):
> Are you fine then to lift the current commit moratorium?
That seems sensible, if you don't expect to be trying to branch RSN
because of the save/restore bug.
Ian.
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: broken/fail/pass
On 07/06/18 12:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble:
> broken/fail/pass"):
>> The same host (italia1) that had the failed xtf test yesterday. The two
>> failures are looking very similar to me.
>>
>> Again the question: should we do a force push?
>
> I think the final decision is up to you, but I would reason along
> these lines:
>
> The point of the push gate is to stop regressions making it into
> master. However, osstest cannot currently handle heisenbugs well, so
> it punts: when something is identified as a heisenbug, it is not
> considered a regression.
>
>
> There is this failure in 123831
> (3960f3a52346348e6b0306f65d19375612bd35b9, staging)
>
> test-xtf-amd64-amd64-5 broken
> test-xtf-amd64-amd64-5 4 host-install(4) broken pass in 123670
>
> This is an infrastructure problem. It means that that xtf test didn't
> run. However, each flight runs the same battery of tests on 5
> different hosts; so identical tests were run on other hosts. We're
> just missing 20% of the XTF test host diversity we would have had.
>
> So on that basis a force push is justified, because we can see that
> the failure in 123831 does not really give any reason to suspect a
> regression and the test coverage was only slightly reduced compared to
> what was planned.
>
>
> However, there are these failures in 123799
> (06f542f8f2e446c01bd0edab51e9450af7f6e05b, master)
>
> test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale
>5 host-ping-check-native fail
>REGR. vs. 123323
>
> This is very likely the known arndale bug and not a cause for concern.
>
> test-amd64-i386-libvirt-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm
>14 guest-saverestore.2 fail
>REGR. vs. 123323b
>
> This failure is being discussed in email. Obviously this is not a
> regression from master, since it's *in* master. But it might be a
> release critical bug.
I'm quite sure it is. OTOH I suspect it should have been addressed
in 4.10 already...
Thinking more about it I believe this is the right time to try
fixing that bug. In case there is no objection I'd like to declare it
as being release critical.
> If it is a release critical bug then branching (and consequently
> opening staging again) might entrench the bug, both by allowing
> effort to go to "shiny new stuff", and by making it harder to fix as
> staging diverges from staging-4.11.
Right.
> So I think overall, I would say this justifies a force push but if the
> reason for wanting a force push was to enable branching, there is an
> actual decision to be made, which is a matter of judgement.
Thanks for the detailed answer, which is more or less following the same
line of thoughts I've had.
So lets wait and see whether there is progress catching the domain save
bug.
Are you fine then to lift the current commit moratorium?
Juergen
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: broken/fail/pass
Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble:
broken/fail/pass"):
> The same host (italia1) that had the failed xtf test yesterday. The two
> failures are looking very similar to me.
>
> Again the question: should we do a force push?
I think the final decision is up to you, but I would reason along
these lines:
The point of the push gate is to stop regressions making it into
master. However, osstest cannot currently handle heisenbugs well, so
it punts: when something is identified as a heisenbug, it is not
considered a regression.
There is this failure in 123831
(3960f3a52346348e6b0306f65d19375612bd35b9, staging)
test-xtf-amd64-amd64-5 broken
test-xtf-amd64-amd64-5 4 host-install(4) broken pass in 123670
This is an infrastructure problem. It means that that xtf test didn't
run. However, each flight runs the same battery of tests on 5
different hosts; so identical tests were run on other hosts. We're
just missing 20% of the XTF test host diversity we would have had.
So on that basis a force push is justified, because we can see that
the failure in 123831 does not really give any reason to suspect a
regression and the test coverage was only slightly reduced compared to
what was planned.
However, there are these failures in 123799
(06f542f8f2e446c01bd0edab51e9450af7f6e05b, master)
test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale
5 host-ping-check-native fail
REGR. vs. 123323
This is very likely the known arndale bug and not a cause for concern.
test-amd64-i386-libvirt-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm
14 guest-saverestore.2 fail
REGR. vs. 123323b
This failure is being discussed in email. Obviously this is not a
regression from master, since it's *in* master. But it might be a
release critical bug.
If it is a release critical bug then branching (and consequently
opening staging again) might entrench the bug, both by allowing
effort to go to "shiny new stuff", and by making it harder to fix as
staging diverges from staging-4.11.
So I think overall, I would say this justifies a force push but if the
reason for wanting a force push was to enable branching, there is an
actual decision to be made, which is a matter of judgement.
Ian.
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: broken/fail/pass
On 07/06/18 03:55, osstest service owner wrote: > flight 123831 xen-unstable real [real] > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/123831/ > > Failures and problems with tests :-( > > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, > including tests which could not be run: > test-amd64-i386-rumprun-i386 broken > test-amd64-i386-rumprun-i386 4 host-install(4)broken REGR. vs. > 123799 The same host (italia1) that had the failed xtf test yesterday. The two failures are looking very similar to me. Again the question: should we do a force push? Juergen ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 123831: trouble: broken/fail/pass
flight 123831 xen-unstable real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/123831/ Failures and problems with tests :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-i386-rumprun-i386 broken test-amd64-i386-rumprun-i386 4 host-install(4)broken REGR. vs. 123799 Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking: test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 17 guest-stopfail like 123799 test-armhf-armhf-libvirt 14 saverestore-support-checkfail like 123799 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 17 guest-stopfail like 123799 test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-xsm 14 saverestore-support-checkfail like 123799 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 17 guest-stop fail like 123799 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 17 guest-stop fail like 123799 test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ws16-amd64 17 guest-stop fail like 123799 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ws16-amd64 17 guest-stopfail like 123799 test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-ws16-amd64 17 guest-stopfail like 123799 test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-raw 13 saverestore-support-checkfail like 123799 test-amd64-i386-xl-pvshim12 guest-start fail never pass test-amd64-i386-libvirt 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-arm64-arm64-xl-credit2 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-arm64-arm64-xl-credit2 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-amd64-i386-libvirt-xsm 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-amd64-amd64-libvirt 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-amd64-amd64-libvirt-xsm 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-arm64-arm64-xl-xsm 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-arm64-arm64-libvirt-xsm 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-arm64-arm64-libvirt-xsm 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-arm64-arm64-xl-xsm 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-amd64-amd64-libvirt-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 11 migrate-support-check fail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-amd64-i386-libvirt-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 11 migrate-support-check fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-amd 17 debian-hvm-install/l1/l2 fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-libvirt-vhd 12 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-rtds 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-rtds 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-libvirt 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-xsm 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-xsm 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-xsm 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-credit2 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-credit2 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-cubietruck 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-cubietruck 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-arm64-arm64-xl 13 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-arm64-arm64-xl 14 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-vhd 12 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl-vhd 13 saverestore-support-checkfail never pass test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-ws16-amd64 17 guest-stop fail never pass test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-raw 12 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-win10-i386 10 windows-install fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win10-i386 10 windows-installfail never pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win10-i386 10 windows-installfail never pass test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win10-i386 10 windows-install fail never pass version targeted for testing: xen 3960f3a52346348e6b0306f65d19375612bd35b9 baseline version: xen 06f542f8f2e446c01bd0edab51e9450af7f6e05b Last test of basis 123799 2018-06-04 11:02:20 Z2 days Testing same since 123831 2018-06-05 20:29:59 Z1 days1 attempts People who touched revisions under test: Andrew Cooper Christian Lindig Marcello Seri jobs:
