flight 174548 ovmf real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/174548/
Perfect :-)
All tests in this flight passed as required
version targeted for testing:
ovmf 52199bf5326a8355d28b2d395db483f7c77d5a4d
baseline version:
ovmf d98efb468211ab508710e
flight 174545 linux-linus real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/174545/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-arm64-arm64-xl-credit1 8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 173462
test-arm64-arm64-xl
flight 174544 linux-linus real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/174544/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-arm64-arm64-xl-credit1 8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 173462
test-arm64-arm64-xl
On Sun, 30 Oct 2022, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 30/10/2022 14:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 28/10/2022 14:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > > > > On 28 Oct 2022, at 14:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Rahul,
> > > >
Hi Stefano,
On 30/10/2022 14:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Julien Grall wrote:
On 28/10/2022 14:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
On 28 Oct 2022, at 14:06, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Rahul,
On 28/10/2022 13:54, Rahul Singh wrote:
For ACPI, I would have expected the information t
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:54 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > So looks like at least the imbalance between two directions are not
> > related to your patch.
> > Likely the debug build is a bigger contributor to the perf difference
> > in both directions.
> >
> > I also tried your patch on a release
flight 174543 linux-linus real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/174543/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-arm64-arm64-xl-credit1 8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 173462
test-arm64-arm64-xl
On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 28/10/2022 14:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > > On 28 Oct 2022, at 14:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rahul,
> > >
> > > On 28/10/2022 13:54, Rahul Singh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > For ACPI, I would have expected the information to be found in
>
flight 174542 xen-unstable real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/174542/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 19 guest-stopfail like 174538
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64
From: Jan Beulich
commit f28347cc66395e96712f5c2db0a302ee75bafce6 upstream.
While working on XSA-361 and its follow-ups, I failed to spot another
place where the kernel mapping part of an operation was not treated the
same as the user space part. Detect and propagate errors and add a 2nd
pr_debu
From: "M. Vefa Bicakci"
commit 0991028cd49567d7016d1b224fe0117c35059f86 upstream.
Prior to this commit, if a grant mapping operation failed partially,
some of the entries in the map_ops array would be invalid, whereas all
of the entries in the kmap_ops array would be valid. This in turn would
ca
From: "M. Vefa Bicakci"
Prior to this commit, the gntdev driver code did not handle the
following scenario correctly with paravirtualized (PV) Xen domains:
* User process sets up a gntdev mapping composed of two grant mappings
(i.e., two pages shared by another Xen domain).
* User process munm
I backported the recent gntdev patches to stable branches before 5.15.
The first patch is a prerequisite for the other backports. The second
patch should apply cleanly to all stable branches, but the third only
applies to 5.10 as it requires mmu_interval_notifier_insert_locked().
Jan Beulich (1):
13 matches
Mail list logo
