Hi Stefano,
On 06/06/2019 23:21, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
On 06/06/2019 09:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.06.19 at 23:38, wrote:
On 6/5/19 9:29 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
My vote is to backport to both. Jan/others please express your opinion.
To
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 06/06/2019 09:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 05.06.19 at 23:38, wrote:
> > > On 6/5/19 9:29 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > My vote is to backport to both. Jan/others please express your opinion.
> > >
> > > To follow the vote convention:
>
On 06/06/2019 09:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.06.19 at 23:38, wrote:
On 6/5/19 9:29 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
My vote is to backport to both. Jan/others please express your opinion.
To follow the vote convention:
4.11: -1
Hmm, I'm surprised by this. Didn't I see you mention to Ian
>>> On 05.06.19 at 23:38, wrote:
> On 6/5/19 9:29 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> My vote is to backport to both. Jan/others please express your opinion.
>
> To follow the vote convention:
>
> 4.11: -1
Hmm, I'm surprised by this. Didn't I see you mention to Ian (on irc)
you'd prefer
Hi Stefano,
On 6/5/19 9:29 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 05/06/2019 00:11, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
On 6/4/19 6:39 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
No, this
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 05/06/2019 00:11, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 6/4/19 6:39 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > Hi Stefano,
> > > > >
> > > > > On
Hi Stefano,
On 05/06/2019 00:11, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
On 6/4/19 6:39 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 6/4/19 6:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,
>>> On 04.06.19 at 19:22, wrote:
> The only one we could consider is 4.10, but AFAICT Jan already did cut
> the last release for it.
I've sent a call for backport requests. The tree isn't closed yet, but
soon will be.
Jan
___
Xen-devel mailing
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 6/4/19 6:39 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi Stefano,
> > >
> > > On 6/4/19 6:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > Hi Jan,
> > > > >
> > > > > On
On 6/4/19 6:39 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 6/4/19 6:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 6/4/19 8:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.06.19 at 19:15, wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [qemu-upstream-4.11-testing test]
> 136184: regressions - FAIL"):
> > I agree with you it would be desirable to test both LIVEPATCH and
> > non-LIVEPATCH, and I understand about limi
Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [qemu-upstream-4.11-testing test]
136184: regressions - FAIL"):
> I agree with you it would be desirable to test both LIVEPATCH and
> non-LIVEPATCH, and I understand about limitation of resources and test
> matrix explosion.
>
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [qemu-upstream-4.11-testing test]
> 136184: regressions - FAIL"):
> > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Per the discussion before, the .config is different between th
Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [qemu-upstream-4.11-testing test]
136184: regressions - FAIL"):
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Per the discussion before, the .config is different between the 2 flights.
> > QEMU testing is not selecting CONFI
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 6/4/19 6:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi Jan,
> > >
> > > On 6/4/19 8:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 03.06.19 at 19:15, wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at
Hi Stefano,
On 6/4/19 6:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 6/4/19 8:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.06.19 at 19:15, wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:52:12PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
The same error cannot be reproduced on laxton*. Looking
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 6/4/19 8:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 03.06.19 at 19:15, wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:52:12PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > The same error cannot be reproduced on laxton*. Looking at the test
> > > > history,
> >
>>> On 04.06.19 at 11:57, wrote:
>
> On 6/4/19 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.06.19 at 11:01, wrote:
>>> On 6/4/19 8:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 03.06.19 at 19:15, wrote:
> It turns out that the first commit that fails to boot on rochester is
> e202feb713
On 6/4/19 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.06.19 at 11:01, wrote:
On 6/4/19 8:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.06.19 at 19:15, wrote:
It turns out that the first commit that fails to boot on rochester is
e202feb713 xen/cmdline: Fix buggy strncmp(s, LITERAL, ss - s) construct
(even
>>> On 04.06.19 at 11:01, wrote:
> On 6/4/19 8:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.06.19 at 19:15, wrote:
>>> It turns out that the first commit that fails to boot on rochester is
>>>e202feb713 xen/cmdline: Fix buggy strncmp(s, LITERAL, ss - s) construct
>>> (even with the "eb8acba82a xen:
Hi Jan,
On 6/4/19 8:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.06.19 at 19:15, wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:52:12PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
The same error cannot be reproduced on laxton*. Looking at the test history,
it looks like qemu-upstream-4.12-testing flight has run successfully a few
>>> On 03.06.19 at 19:15, wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:52:12PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> The same error cannot be reproduced on laxton*. Looking at the test history,
>> it looks like qemu-upstream-4.12-testing flight has run successfully a few
>> times on rochester*. So we may have
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:52:12PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> The same error cannot be reproduced on laxton*. Looking at the test history,
> it looks like qemu-upstream-4.12-testing flight has run successfully a few
> times on rochester*. So we may have fixed the error in Xen 4.12.
>
>
Hi,
Answering to myself.
On 5/17/19 8:00 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 5/17/19 6:23 PM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:38:54PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for CCing me.
On 5/16/19 11:37 AM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:48:17PM
Hi,
On 5/17/19 6:23 PM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:38:54PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for CCing me.
On 5/16/19 11:37 AM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:48:17PM +, osstest service owner wrote:
flight 136184
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:38:54PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Anthony,
>
> Thank you for CCing me.
>
> On 5/16/19 11:37 AM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:48:17PM +, osstest service owner wrote:
> > > flight 136184 qemu-upstream-4.11-testing real [real]
> > >
Julien Grall writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [qemu-upstream-4.11-testing test] 136184:
regressions - FAIL"):
> On 5/16/19 11:37 AM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> >> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> >> including tests which could not be run:
> >>
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for CCing me.
On 5/16/19 11:37 AM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:48:17PM +, osstest service owner wrote:
flight 136184 qemu-upstream-4.11-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/136184/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:48:17PM +, osstest service owner wrote:
> flight 136184 qemu-upstream-4.11-testing real [real]
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/136184/
>
> Regressions :-(
>
> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> including tests which could not be run:
flight 136184 qemu-upstream-4.11-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/136184/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
build-arm64-pvopsbroken in 134594
build-arm64
30 matches
Mail list logo
