Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Shared coprocessor framework

2016-11-13 Thread Artem Mygaiev
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > Does this also mean that the hypervisor has to know the co-processors? > As in how to start/stop them? And how to tell them to save/restore > guest context? Or is there some generic specification for doing this? Unfortunately there

[Xen-devel] [libvirt test] 102178: regressions - FAIL

2016-11-13 Thread osstest service owner
flight 102178 libvirt real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102178/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-armhf-armhf-libvirt 6 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 102144 Regressions which are r

[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable-coverity test] 102183: all pass - PUSHED

2016-11-13 Thread osstest service owner
flight 102183 xen-unstable-coverity real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102183/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required version targeted for testing: xen 67b5b302f5319f70288587dc98ab505c4deada1e baseline version: xen bcb1

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 02/12] xenstore: call add_change_node() directly when writing node

2016-11-13 Thread Juergen Gross
On 12/11/16 16:10, Wei Liu wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:00:00AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Instead of calling add_change_node() at places where write_node() is >> called, do that inside write_node(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross > > > There seems to be a subtle change in behavi

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 08/12] xenstore: let command functions return error or success

2016-11-13 Thread Juergen Gross
On 12/11/16 16:11, Wei Liu wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:00:06AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Add a return value to all wire command functions of xenstored. If such >> a function returns an error send the error message in >> process_message(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross > > As far

[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 102172: tolerable trouble: broken/fail/pass - PUSHED

2016-11-13 Thread osstest service owner
flight 102172 xen-unstable real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102172/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking): test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 3 host-install(3) broken in 102160 pass in 102172 test-am

[Xen-devel] [qemu-mainline test] 102174: regressions - FAIL

2016-11-13 Thread osstest service owner
flight 102174 qemu-mainline real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102174/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: build-i386 3 host-install(3) broken in 102163 REGR. vs. 101909 test-amd64-amd64-

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more

2016-11-13 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 11/12/2016 05:05 PM, M. Vefa Bicakci wrote: > On 11/10/2016 06:31 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 11/10/2016 10:05 AM, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote: >>> >>> On 11/10/2016 09:02 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: On 11/10/2016 06:13 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, M. Vefa Bic

[Xen-devel] [linux-3.10 baseline-only test] 68025: regressions - trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass

2016-11-13 Thread Platform Team regression test user
This run is configured for baseline tests only. flight 68025 linux-3.10 real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68025/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-amd64 3 host-install(3

[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 102187: tolerable FAIL

2016-11-13 Thread osstest service owner
flight 102187 xen-unstable real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102187/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking): test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-raw 3 host-install(3) broken in 102172 pass in 102187 test-armhf-armhf-xl-credit2 15 g

[Xen-devel] [ovmf baseline-only test] 68029: all pass

2016-11-13 Thread Platform Team regression test user
This run is configured for baseline tests only. flight 68029 ovmf real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68029/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required version targeted for testing: ovmf ffd6b0b1b65e620816fb16fe551f92309f4b7269 baseline v

[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable baseline-only test] 68020: regressions - trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass

2016-11-13 Thread Platform Team regression test user
This run is configured for baseline tests only. flight 68020 xen-unstable real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68020/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-i386-libvirt-xsm 3 host-install(3)

[Xen-devel] [qemu-mainline test] 102190: regressions - FAIL

2016-11-13 Thread osstest service owner
flight 102190 qemu-mainline real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102190/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-amd64-libvirt 11 guest-start fail REGR. vs. 101909 test-amd64-amd64-

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 01/15] docs: L2 Cache Allocation Technology (CAT) feature document.

2016-11-13 Thread Yi Sun
On 16-11-11 16:33:09, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:40:49AM +0800, Yi Sun wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Yi Sun > > --- > > docs/features/l2_cat.pandoc | 314 > > > > 1 file changed, 314 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 doc

[Xen-devel] [distros-debian-wheezy test] 68024: all pass

2016-11-13 Thread Platform Team regression test user
flight 68024 distros-debian-wheezy real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68024/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required baseline version: flight 67985 jobs: build-amd64 pass build-armh

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen ARM small task (WAS: Re: [Xen Question])

2016-11-13 Thread 유정우
Thank you for your attention. >From upper emails, https://bugs.xenproject.org/xen/ this is the small TODO list, which i follow up right? 2016-11-12 1:59 GMT+09:00 Edgar E. Iglesias : > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:46:56AM +, Julien Grall wrote: > > Hi Stefano, > > > > On 11/11/2016 02:24, St

[Xen-devel] [distros-debian-jessie test] 68027: tolerable FAIL

2016-11-13 Thread Platform Team regression test user
flight 68027 distros-debian-jessie real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68027/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking): test-amd64-i386-i386-jessie-netboot-pvgrub 10 guest-start fail like 67993 Tests which did

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more

2016-11-13 Thread M. Vefa Bicakci
On 11/13/2016 09:04 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/12/2016 05:05 PM, M. Vefa Bicakci wrote: >> On 11/10/2016 06:31 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> On 11/10/2016 10:05 AM, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote: On 11/10/2016 09:02 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/10/2016 06:13 AM, Thomas

[Xen-devel] [distros-debian-stretch test] 68028: tolerable FAIL

2016-11-13 Thread Platform Team regression test user
flight 68028 distros-debian-stretch real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68028/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking): test-armhf-armhf-armhf-stretch-netboot-pygrub 9 debian-di-install fail like 68000 test-amd64-

[Xen-devel] [qemu-mainline test] 102199: regressions - FAIL

2016-11-13 Thread osstest service owner
flight 102199 qemu-mainline real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102199/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-amd64-libvirt 11 guest-start fail REGR. vs. 101909 test-amd64-amd64-

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/EFI: meet further spec requirements for runtime calls

2016-11-13 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 12.11.16 at 07:48, wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:39:26PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 10/11/16 16:06, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so >> > far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't >> > gua