On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 01:15:41PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote: > On Fri Feb 25 2011 at 12:36:07 +0200, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:45:30PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > pretty much unchanged. Feel free to perform benchmarks if you want. > > > There are also changes to EST in that time window... > > > > This must be a bad joke. The things I did were just simple refactoring. > > As you should be well aware of, with est(4) and powernow(4) the frequencies > > are touched only by an explicit request from the system administrator (or > > possibly, estd(1)). Nothing like this could have happened from my changes. > > Don't worry, it is. Andreas performed a run with a more exact timestamp, > and everyone can see for themselves: > > http://www.gson.org/netbsd/bugs/build/commits-2011.02.html > > Scroll down to 2004.02.24. > > Our commit guidelines say that changes which cause unhandled test > regressions will be backed out, so I want to see the issue investigated > and addressed instead of indifference and excuses.
So let's see. I saw a random atf failure (as in: atf-run terminated in the middle of a run) somewhere puffs related in fs/. I get time outs for stress_long and stress_short (rump/rumpkern/t_sp). I see a failing test for SSP (lib/libc/ssp/t_ssp raw), which is just a broken test case. I see a number of failing rumphijack test cases (t_vfs cpcopy, mv_nox, mv_x, paxcopy). Joerg
