On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:00:50PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 01:36 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:42:51PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> On 09/21/2016 12:13 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>> Platform Team regression test user writes ("[xen-4.5-testing
> >>> baseline-only test] 67737: regressions - FAIL"):
> >>>> test-xtf-amd64-amd64-1 19 xtf/test-hvm32-invlpg~shadow fail REGR. vs.
> >>>> 67706
> >>>> test-xtf-amd64-amd64-1 26 xtf/test-hvm32pae-invlpg~shadow fail REGR. vs.
> >>>> 67706
> >>> Several of these, 32bit and 64bit HVM. This is in the Citrix
> >>> Cambridge osstest instance. The Xen Project colo instance is
> >>> unaffected (flight 101045 there passed with the same revisions of
> >>> everything)
> >>> This is with:
> >>> xen e4ae4b03d35babc9624b7286f1ea4c6749bad84b
> >>> xtf b5c5332de4268d33a6f8eadc1d17c7b9cf0e7dc3
> >>> linux b65f2f457c49b2cfd7967c34b7a0b04c25587f13
> >>> linux-firmware c530a75c1e6a472b0eb9558310b518f0dfcd8860
> >> I can't get these commits neither for Xen nor for Linux. Are these from
> >> Citrix trees?
> > No. They are all upstream commits.
> Apparently xen commit *just* made it to the tree, after I checked it.
Yes, it passed in Mass COLO. We suspected it can be related to
generations of AMD cpus (hence the "old" in email title).
> And I still don't see Linux one.
It should be upstream commit, too. But I don't think it matters that
> I ran a quick test (not xtf, our internal one) with 32-bit shadow guest
> and didn't see anything. But then Andrew seems to have pointed out what
That's probably because your guest is a well-behaved guest.
> the problem is.
Xen-devel mailing list