Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 9292: regressions - FAIL

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 14.10.11 at 06:11, xen.org <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> flight 9292 xen-unstable real [real]
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/9292/ 
> 
> Regressions :-(
> 
> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking:
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf     16 guest-start.2              fail REGR. vs. 
> 9252

This particular test appears to be failing every now and then, hinting at
some further bit rot problem in sedf. Therefore I wonder whether
sedf needs some more serious looking at or whether we should simply
drop it (and with it the test).

Jan

> Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking,
> including regressions (tests previously passed) regarded as allowable:
>  test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-amd  9 guest-start.2                fail   never 
> pass
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel  9 guest-start                 fail never 
> pass
>  test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel  9 guest-start.2                fail never 
> pass
>  test-amd64-i386-win-vcpus1   16 leak-check/check             fail   never 
> pass
>  test-amd64-i386-xl-win-vcpus1 13 guest-stop                   fail  never 
> pass
>  test-amd64-i386-win          16 leak-check/check             fail   never 
> pass
>  test-amd64-amd64-win         16 leak-check/check             fail   never 
> pass
>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-win      13 guest-stop                   fail   never 
> pass
>  test-i386-i386-xl-win        13 guest-stop                   fail   never 
> pass
>  test-i386-i386-win           16 leak-check/check             fail   never 
> pass
> 
> version targeted for testing:
>  xen                  a65693f9fb12
> baseline version:
>  xen                  4b0907c6a08c


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