Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.0-testing test] 2032: regressions - FAIL

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 19/08/2010 11:48, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.0-testing test] 2032: regressions
> - FAIL"):
>> I think we should try e6b9b2cbca5093e8e38d3e314e2f6415ad951c60. This is
>> the commit before e73f4955a821f850f5b88c32d12a81714523a95f which was
>> fingered as bad by the xen-unstable bisect yesterday.
> 
> Shall I try that with current xen-4.0-testing tip, or with the
> changeset I tried last night (pre the netif header backport) ?
> 
> It's likely to take all day so it would be nice to pick the right
> combination.

Does your testing use blktap vhds, or something else (e.g., LVM-backed phy)?
If you don't use blktap then it's utterly immaterial whether you test tip or
two chnagesets back (skipping the ring.h changes), as blktap is the only
subsystem in the Xen tree to use the ring.h header. Linux kernel has its own
copy of that ring.h file and will be unaffected either way.

 -- Keir



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