RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Daily Xen Builds

["Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >             Platform | PASS | FAIL | XPASS | XFAIL |
> > ---------------------+------+------+-------+-------+
> >               FC3pae |   73 |   20 |     1 |     0 |
> > hs20.1.rhel4-x86_32pae |   73 |   20 |     1 |     0 |
> >  hs20.1.sles9-x86_64 |   70 |   23 |     1 |     0 |
> >  hs20.2.sles9-x86_64 |   71 |   22 |     1 |     0 |
> >      hs20.fc4_x86_64 |   70 |   23 |     1 |     0 |
> >      x235sles9nonpae |   73 |   20 |     1 |     0 |
> >           x305rh4pae |   72 |   20 |     1 |     0 |
> >      x305sles9nonpae |   72 |   20 |     1 |     0 |
> >           x335fc4pae |   85 |    8 |     1 |     0 |
> >     x335sles9_pae4gb |   73 |   20 |     1 |     0 |
> >  x460.fc3-x86_64-8gb |   67 |   26 |     0 |     1 |
> 
> Wow, this is a pretty major regression somewhere.  We were 
> down at about 8 fails per platform (some with much less) a week ago.  
> 
> http://xmtest.dague.org/ shows the fail rate on a steady 
> upward climb, which is not the direction we should be heading 
> right now.

Sean,

I think this is actually your bug :-)

The changes to xm-test you posted on Friday seem to have broken the
initrd such that the guest can't mount /proc, which seems to account for
the failures.

The mini XenRT run used for the staging tree still uses xm-test v0.3 as
latter versions are too slow (though I know you're working on this), and
we're not seeing these failures, hence changesets are still getting out.


Thanks,
Ian





 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel