flight 50383 qemu-upstream-4.5-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/50383/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-amd64-i386-pair 21 guest-migrate/src_host/dst_host fail REGR. vs. 36517
Tests w
flight 50385 libvirt real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/50385/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
build-armhf-libvirt 5 libvirt-build fail REGR. vs. 50368
Tests which did not succe
flight 50384 rumpuserxen real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/50384/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
build-i386-rumpuserxen5 rumpuserxen-build fail REGR. vs. 33866
build-amd64-rumpuserx
On 11/04/2015 22:05, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 10:22:16 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2015 20:33, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 8:25:52 PM, you wrote:
>>>
On 11/04/15 18:42, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 7:35:57 P
PS - it's not much work to change to using bytes instead of bits. I
agree it would be better. I'll change it if the maintainers want.
Linda
On 4/11/2015 2:31 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Linda,
Thank you for sending the new version.
It's common to CC the maintainers of the patch. Most of us
Saturday, April 11, 2015, 10:22:16 PM, you wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 20:33, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 8:25:52 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/15 18:42, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
Saturday, April 11, 2015, 7:35:57 PM, you wrote:
> On 11/04/15 18:25, Sander Eik
Hi Julien,
Thanks for your feed back. Also, thanks for sending to all the
maintainers.
On 4/11/2015 2:32 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Linda,
As said on the previous patch, it's not necessary to send another
patch in order to fix the previous one. Can you merge them?
Of course, I can. I'
Hi Linda,
As said on the previous patch, it's not necessary to send another patch
in order to fix the previous one. Can you merge them?
Regards,
On 11/04/2015 05:25, Linda Jacobson wrote:
Fixed a comment that included a reference to a function that was
not included with these changes.
Signe
Hi Linda,
Thank you for sending the new version.
It's common to CC the maintainers of the patch. Most of us have filter
in order to get directly mail they are involved too and avoid watching
every time the ML. Otherwise answer to your mail may take longer.
You can find them with the scripts
On 11/04/2015 20:33, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 8:25:52 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/15 18:42, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 7:35:57 PM, you wrote:
>>>
On 11/04/15 18:25, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 6:38:17 PM,
Saturday, April 11, 2015, 8:25:52 PM, you wrote:
> On 11/04/15 18:42, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 7:35:57 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/15 18:25, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
Saturday, April 11, 2015, 6:38:17 PM, you wrote:
> On 11/04/15 17:32, Andrew Cooper
On 11/04/15 18:42, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 7:35:57 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/15 18:25, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 6:38:17 PM, you wrote:
>>>
On 11/04/15 17:32, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 11/04/15 17:21, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
Saturday, April 11, 2015, 7:35:57 PM, you wrote:
> On 11/04/15 18:25, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 6:38:17 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/15 17:32, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 11/04/15 17:21, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 4:21:56 PM, you wrot
On 11/04/15 18:25, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 6:38:17 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/15 17:32, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 11/04/15 17:21, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
Saturday, April 11, 2015, 4:21:56 PM, you wrote:
> On 11/04/15 15:11, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
Saturday, April 11, 2015, 6:38:17 PM, you wrote:
> On 11/04/15 17:32, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 11/04/15 17:21, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 4:21:56 PM, you wrote:
>>>
On 11/04/15 15:11, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Friday, April 10, 2015, 8:55:27 PM, you wrote
On 11/04/15 17:32, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 11/04/15 17:21, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 4:21:56 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/15 15:11, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
Friday, April 10, 2015, 8:55:27 PM, you wrote:
> On 10/04/15 11:24, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
flight 50376 linux-3.16 real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/50376/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-amd64-amd64-xl-credit2 17 guest-localmigrate/x10fail REGR. vs. 34167
Tests which are failin
On 11/04/15 17:21, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Saturday, April 11, 2015, 4:21:56 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/15 15:11, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> Friday, April 10, 2015, 8:55:27 PM, you wrote:
>>>
On 10/04/15 11:24, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Finally got some ti
flight 50375 xen-4.2-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/50375/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-amd64-i386-qemuu-freebsd10-i386 10 guest-start fail REGR. vs. 36512
test-i386-i386-pa
On 11/04/15 15:11, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Friday, April 10, 2015, 8:55:27 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/15 11:24, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> Finally got some time to figure this out .. and i have narrowed it down to:
>>> git://xenbits.xen.org/staging/qemu-upstream-unstable
Friday, April 10, 2015, 8:55:27 PM, you wrote:
> On 10/04/15 11:24, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Finally got some time to figure this out .. and i have narrowed it down to:
>> git://xenbits.xen.org/staging/qemu-upstream-unstable.git
>> commit 7665d6ba98e20fb05c420de947c1750fd47e5
El 10/04/15 a les 19.29, Roger Pau Monne ha escrit:
> When the caller of paging_log_dirty_op is a hvm guest Xen would choke when
> trying to copy the dirty bitmap to the guest because the paging lock is
> already held.
>
> Fix this by independently mapping each page of the guest bitmap as needed
>
flight 50374 xen-4.3-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/50374/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
build-amd64-rumpuserxen 4 capture-logs!broken in 50358 [st=!broken!]
build-i386-rumpus
On 4/10/2015 8:06 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
(I switched to a different test box "elbling1" with the same symptoms:
~25% packet loss in ping under 64-bit Xen with 32-bit x86 Linux; 100%
loss Linux x86 32-bit baremetal with `iommu=soft swiotlb=force'. In
each case I had disabled the bridge setup so w
24 matches
Mail list logo
