On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 02:37:31PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 14:23 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > > I saw this bug since the introduction of amd64-i386 stubdom test case. > > Now it looks like intermittent, i.e. we failed at the beginning, passed > > at some point, now it failed again. > > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/xen-unstable.html > gives the history of it. > > It looks as if italia* and chardonnay* might be susceptible but really I > don't think there is sufficient information to draw any particular > conclusion wrt the frequency of this bug or whether it might be host > specific or not, since the passes on other hosts are general singletons. >
Note that we do have one pass vs five fails on italia0. The same goes for chardonay0 (one pass vs four fails). It's really weird. > The 64-bit dom0 case is at > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/xen-unstable.html > I'm not sure what, if anything, it tells us though. It does look to be > more less prone to errors (it having now hit merlot notwithstanding, > although it seems to reliably pass the install phase there). > > One potentially interesting case is that in the 32-bit dom0 case the > stubdom is also 32-bit, while in the other case the stubdom is 64-bit. > > I'm not convinced using a 32-bit stubdom is the right choice, but I > suppose it ought to work. > Yeah, it ought to work. But making it actually work requires much effort. I would say let's mark that failure none blocking for the moment. Wei. > Ian. > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
