On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:12 -0400, Randy MacLeod wrote: > For v2 I'll fix the build for musl and > remove that unused patch that patchworks pointed out. > > All the glibc builds succeeded except for arm and mips64 > which were not supported by the recipe. I'll check on that > with the new version of valgrind at some point, likely on > master-wr-> 2.6.1. > > > > Here is the pass rate compared to 2.6-M3 QA run: > > Test run: qa-3.13 vg-3.14 vg-3.13 > > Tests ran 558 547 538 > Passed 215 287 201 > Failed 343 260 337 > Passrate 38.53 52.5 37.4 > Last Passrate 49.1
Thanks, that at least suggests we are probably better off upgrading and we can do so based on real data! :) > where: > qa-3.13 is from the 2.6-M3 QA report > vg-3.14 is this update and > vg-3.13 is with this update removed using poky at: > 3b77e7b785 systemtap: Fix issues from 4.0 upgrade > > So the ptest results really are better and they are even > better than the last pass rate that QA reported. > Nonetheless, a 52.5% pass rate isn't good enough so > I'll work on that for master-wr with backports to 2.6.1. > > ../Randy > > > > Some notes and more raw data than presented above. > > BTW, I allocated 4G RAM to the qemu machine > after running with the default and seeing the OOM killer > run many times. I wonder if the QA test doesn't allocate > enough RAM to deal with valgrind's high overhead. Ross' comments based on Maxin's work looking at valgrind ptest were that the tests do end up OOM a lot and aren't particularly stable/predictable. More investigation is clearly needed to understand what is going on... Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
