Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

xen.org writes ("[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete 
test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel"):
> branch xen-unstable
> xen branch xen-unstable
> job test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel
> test xen-install
> 
> Tree: linux git://git.eu.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git
> Tree: qemu git://hg.uk.xensource.com/HG/qemu-xen-unstable.git
> Tree: xen http://hg.uk.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg
> 
> *** Found and reproduced problem changeset ***
> 
>   Bug is in tree:  xen http://hg.uk.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg
>   Bug introduced:  bb9b81008733
>   Bug not present: d54cfae72cd1
> 
> 
>   changeset:   23802:bb9b81008733
>   user:        Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>
>   date:        Wed Aug 31 15:16:14 2011 +0100
>       
>       x86: Increase the default NR_CPUS to 256
>       
>       Changeset 21012:ef845a385014 bumped the default to 128 about one and a
>       half years ago. Increase it now to 256, as systems with eg. 160
>       logical CPUs are becoming (have become) common.
>       
>       Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>

My bisector is pretty reliable nowadays.  Looking at the revision
graph it tested before/after/before/after/before/after, ie three times
each on the same host.

This change looks innocuous enough TBH.  Is there any way this change
could have broken a PV-on-HVM guest ?  Note that RHEL6, which is what
this is testing, seems to generally be full of bugs.

If the problem is indeed a bug in the current RHEL6 then I will add
this test to the "do not care" list.

Ian.

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