flight 104570 xen-4.6-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104570/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-raw 9 debian-di-installfail REGR. vs. 104308
Regressions whi
This run is configured for baseline tests only.
flight 68412 xen-unstable real [real]
http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68412/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
build-armhf-xsm 3 host-install(3) br
flight 104587 xen-unstable-coverity real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104587/
Perfect :-)
All tests in this flight passed as required
version targeted for testing:
xen e225a1c7c06037e4f938efa43d4407e7abb088c1
baseline version:
xen ac94
flight 104575 ovmf real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104575/
Perfect :-)
All tests in this flight passed as required
version targeted for testing:
ovmf 44175ee77f0c4492e26718212cee90dd4d0f511d
baseline version:
ovmf aa961dea1e199d23d9b76
flight 104573 xen-4.5-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104573/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-amd64-i386-libvirt 14 guest-saverestorefail REGR. vs. 103805
test-amd64-amd6
anyone?
On 01/13/2017 08:33 AM, Sherrard Burton wrote:
please forgive the cross-posting. having not had much luck on the
xen-users list, and having seen similarly-complex threads on this list,
i thought i'd see if anyone here had any ideas or pointers.
TL;DR
all packets are being dropped in a d
flight 104572 xen-unstable real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104572/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
test-amd64-amd64-rumprun-amd64 16 rumprun-demo-xenstorels/xenstorels.repeat
fail pass in 104513
test-armhf-arm
flight 104579 libvirt real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104579/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt 13 saverestore-support-checkfail like 104401
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-qcow2 1
On 01/20/2017 11:51 PM, Joao Martins wrote:
> Commit 6e03363 ("x86: Implement TSC adjust feature for HVM guest")
> implemented TSC_ADJUST MSR for hvm guests. Though while booting
> an HVM guest the boot CPU would have a value set with delta_tsc -
> guest tsc while secondary CPUS would have 0. For e
flight 104578 linux-linus real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104578/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 20 leak-check/check fail REGR.
vs. 59254
build-armh
This run is configured for baseline tests only.
flight 68414 qemu-mainline real [real]
http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68414/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
build-armhf-xsm 3 host-install(3) b
flight 104589 ovmf real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104589/
Perfect :-)
All tests in this flight passed as required
version targeted for testing:
ovmf 70420e31a04b56f99c1306e281434532a86bde70
baseline version:
ovmf 44175ee77f0c4492e2671
flight 104585 xen-4.6-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104585/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-debianhvm-amd64 3 host-install(3) broken pass in
104570
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-r
This run is configured for baseline tests only.
flight 68415 ovmf real [real]
http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68415/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
build-i3863 host-install(3) broken bas
On 01/18/2017 08:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.01.17 at 12:54, wrote:
So, would it be fine to start a PVH Dom0 with as many vCPUs as what's returned
from dom0_max_vcpus, and mark them as enabled in the MADT. That's basically all
we need in order to match current PV Dom0 functionality?
Yes,
flight 104590 xen-4.5-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104590/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
test-amd64-i386-libvirt 14 guest-saverestore fail in 104573 pass in 104590
test-amd64-amd64-libvirt-vhd
This run is configured for baseline tests only.
flight 68417 xen-4.6-testing real [real]
http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68417/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
build-armhf 3 host-install(3)
flight 104600 ovmf real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/104600/
Perfect :-)
All tests in this flight passed as required
version targeted for testing:
ovmf f3fa35a00233b6f2e7653b3b8c3e2b28b8ecbe7f
baseline version:
ovmf 70420e31a04b56f99c130
On 21/01/17 00:15, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> On 01/20/2017 02:54 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> The information given in the xl man page for the mem-max command is
>> rather brief. Expand it in order to let the reader understand what it
>> is really doing.
>>
>> As the related libxl function libxl_domain_se
This run is configured for baseline tests only.
flight 68418 ovmf real [real]
http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68418/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
build-i3863 host-install(3) broken bas
20 matches
Mail list logo