On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 11:52 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("OSSTEST: Re-blessing cubietruck-
> {picasso,gleizes,metzinger} for production use"):
> > I've been running a couple of adhoc production tests per day on these
> > since
> > before Xmas and they haven't lost sight of their disks again.
> >
> > TLDR; I think we should throw them back in the pool.
>
> Great.
I'll take this as a "yes, go ahead" ;-)
> > With the recent timeout fixes they are working as well as the
> > production
> > cubietruck-braque.
> >
> > There are two flakey tests test-armhf-armhf-xl-rtds and test-armhf-
> > armhf-
> > libvirt-raw, but those appear to be much better than before the timeout
> > changes and not specific to these three boards since the fourth one
> > looks
> > to behave much the same.
> >
> > At first glance it looks like some later test steps might just need a
> > bit
> > more time on CT too.
>
> Maybe we should have target_adjust_timeout honour a host property to
> multiply timeouts by some factor.
That's not a bad idea, assuming the remaining issues really are timeouts of
this sort.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
