[Xen-devel] [linux-3.18 test] 61754: regressions - trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass

flight 61754 linux-3.18 real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/61754/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: build-armhf-xsm 3 host-install(3) broken REGR. vs. 58581

[Xen-devel] [qemu-mainline test] 61767: regressions - FAIL

flight 61767 qemu-mainline real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/61767/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64 19 guest-start/debianhvm.repeat fail REGR. vs. 61666

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 2.6.32 57/62] x86/xen: Probe target addresses in set_aliased_prot() before the hypercall

2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. -- From: Andy Lutomirski commit aa1acff356bbedfd03b544051f5b371746735d89 upstream. The update_va_mapping hypercall can fail if the VA isn't present in the guest's page tables.

[Xen-devel] [libvirt test] 61770: tolerable FAIL - PUSHED

flight 61770 libvirt real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/61770/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking: test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-qcow2 9 debian-di-installfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-xsm 12

[Xen-devel] [linux-mingo-tip-master test] 61774: regressions - FAIL

flight 61774 linux-mingo-tip-master real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/61774/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 13 guest-localmigrate fail REGR.

[Xen-devel] [linux-3.4 test] 61771: regressions - FAIL

flight 61771 linux-3.4 real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/61771/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64 6 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 30511

[Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing baseline test] 61745: tolerable FAIL

"Old" tested version had not actually been tested; therefore in this flight we test it, rather than a new candidate. The baseline, if any, is the most recent actually tested revision. flight 61745 xen-4.6-testing real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/61745/ Failures :-/

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/2] block/xen-blkfront: Support non-indirect with 64KB page granularity

Hi Julien, On 09/12/2015 03:31 AM, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a follow-up on the previous discussion [1] related to guest using 64KB > page granularity not booting with backend using non-indirect grant. > > This has been successly tested on ARM64 with both 64KB and 4KB page >

[Xen-devel] [qemu-upstream-4.6-testing baseline test] 61746: tolerable FAIL

"Old" tested version had not actually been tested; therefore in this flight we test it, rather than a new candidate. The baseline, if any, is the most recent actually tested revision. flight 61746 qemu-upstream-4.6-testing real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/61746/

[Xen-devel] [distros-debian-snapshot test] 37923: regressions - FAIL

flight 37923 distros-debian-snapshot real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/37923/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-i386-amd64-current-netinst-pygrub 9 debian-di-install fail REGR. vs.

[Xen-devel] [xen-4.5-testing test] 61751: regressions - FAIL

flight 61751 xen-4.5-testing real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/61751/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-armhf-armhf-xl-credit2 16 guest-start/debian.repeat fail REGR. vs. 61513

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] efi/libstub/fdt: Standardize the names of EFI stub parameters

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:25:59PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:46:43PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 05:23:02PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: [...] > > > What's troublesome with the boot services? > > > > > > What can't be simulated? > > > > How