On 30/04/24 11:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.04.2024 10:03, GitLab wrote:
Pipeline #1272869158 has failed!
Project: xen ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen )
Branch: staging ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/commits/staging
)
Commit: b819bd65 (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/commit/b819bd65f4fb25be582f66ba2e4134f61d86f459
)
Commit Message: revert "x86/mm: re-implement get_page_light() u...
Commit Author: Jan Beulich ( https://gitlab.com/jbeulich )
Pipeline #1272869158 (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/pipelines/1272869158 ) triggered
by Jan Beulich ( https://gitlab.com/jbeulich )
had 3 failed jobs.
Job #6745823842 (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/jobs/6745823842/raw )
Stage: test
Name: adl-pci-hvm-x86-64-gcc-debug
Job #6745823720 (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/jobs/6745823720/raw )
Stage: analyze
Name: eclair-x86_64
This flags start_nested_{svm,vmx}() as regressions, when the regression was
previously spotted already. Is that intended? I.e. shouldn't the comparison
be to the previous pipeline run, such that issues are pointed out only for
what is actually being added anew with the patch / batch under test?
Job #6745823721 (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/jobs/6745823721/raw )
Stage: analyze
Name: eclair-ARM64
Similarly this appears to point out regressions which were previously spotted.
A patch to make ECLAIR analysis *not* allowed to fail has been sent.
It will also solve the issue you are pointing out.
Thanks for reporting it.
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.
Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
