On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
>
> On 12/06/2017 15:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 12.06.17 at 16:30, wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/06/17 09:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07.06.17 at 10:12, wrote:
On 06.06.17 at 21:19, wrote:
>>
Hi Jan,
On 12/06/2017 15:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.06.17 at 16:30, wrote:
On 09/06/17 09:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.06.17 at 10:12, wrote:
On 06.06.17 at 21:19, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.06.17 at 16:00, wrote:
Looking at the serial logs for that and compa
>>> On 12.06.17 at 16:30, wrote:
> On 09/06/17 09:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.06.17 at 10:12, wrote:
>> On 06.06.17 at 21:19, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.06.17 at 16:00, wrote:
>> Looking at the serial logs for that and comparing them with 10
Hi Jan,
On 09/06/17 09:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.06.17 at 10:12, wrote:
On 06.06.17 at 21:19, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.06.17 at 16:00, wrote:
Looking at the serial logs for that and comparing them with 10009,
it's not terribly easy to see what's going on beca
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 07.06.17 at 10:12, wrote:
> On 06.06.17 at 21:19, wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> >>> On 06.06.17 at 16:00, wrote:
> >>> > Looking at the serial logs for that and comparing them with 10009,
> >>> > it's not terribly ea
>>> On 07.06.17 at 10:12, wrote:
On 06.06.17 at 21:19, wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> >>> On 06.06.17 at 16:00, wrote:
>>> > Looking at the serial logs for that and comparing them with 10009,
>>> > it's not terribly easy to see what's going on because the kernel
>>> >
>>> On 06.06.17 at 21:19, wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.06.17 at 16:00, wrote:
>> > Looking at the serial logs for that and comparing them with 10009,
>> > it's not terribly easy to see what's going on because the kernel
>> > versions are different and so produce di
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.06.17 at 16:00, wrote:
> > Looking at the serial logs for that and comparing them with 10009,
> > it's not terribly easy to see what's going on because the kernel
> > versions are different and so produce different messages about xenbr0
> > (and I
>>> On 06.06.17 at 16:00, wrote:
> Looking at the serial logs for that and comparing them with 10009,
> it's not terribly easy to see what's going on because the kernel
> versions are different and so produce different messages about xenbr0
> (and I think may have a different bridge port managemen
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 110009: regressions -
FAIL"):
> So finally we have some output from the debugging code added by
> 933f966bcd ("x86/mm: add temporary debugging code to
> get_page_from_gfn_p2m()"), i.e. the migration hei
>>> On 06.06.17 at 15:20, wrote:
> So actually it looks like reboot might have been going on, which also
> explains why the guest was booting as domain 9 while domain 7 was having
> problems during migrate.
Hmm, so far I was assuming the guest reboot to have been a result
of migration having gone
On 06/06/17 13:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.06.17 at 18:55, wrote:
>> flight 110009 xen-unstable real [real]
>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/110009/
>>
>> Regressions :-(
>>
>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>> including tests which could not be run:
>> te
>>> On 05.06.17 at 18:55, wrote:
> flight 110009 xen-unstable real [real]
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/110009/
>
> Regressions :-(
>
> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> including tests which could not be run:
> test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 15 guest-l
flight 110009 xen-unstable real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/110009/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 15 guest-localmigrate/x10 fail REGR. vs.
109841
Tests which
14 matches
Mail list logo
