There seems to be a large number of xm-test failures in current tip. Is anyone else seeing this (~15 FAILs). I''m attempting to figure out what changeset broke things. Regards, Anthony Liguori _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>From our test in VMX, it is fine in latest change set 9238.>-----Original Message----- >From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com >[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Liguori >Sent: 2006年3月15日 7:06 >To: xen-devel >Subject: [Xen-devel] xm-test failures? > >There seems to be a large number of xm-test failures in current tip. Is >anyone else seeing this (~15 FAILs). I''m attempting to figure out what >changeset broke things. > >Regards, > >Anthony Liguori > >_______________________________________________ >Xen-devel mailing list >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 16:23 +0800, Yu, Ping Y wrote:> >From our test in VMX, it is fine in latest change set 9238.Anthony was referring to non-HVM testing, which is seeing failures with block-attach and migrate tests. These tests are SKIP''d on HVM because it needs infrastructure for block-attach that isn''t there yet and migrate won''t yet work with HVM. You are right, HVM passes the tests well it does run. Yesterday on cs9236, I ran with only 3 XFAILS - the network ping tests that are known problems - as the only errors. So, it''s time to add more tests and support for HVM in xm-test. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Dan> >-----Original Message----- > >From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com > >[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Liguori > >Sent: 2006年3月15日 7:06 > >To: xen-devel > >Subject: [Xen-devel] xm-test failures? > > > >There seems to be a large number of xm-test failures in current tip. Is > >anyone else seeing this (~15 FAILs). I''m attempting to figure out what > >changeset broke things. > > > >Regards, > > > >Anthony Liguori > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Xen-devel mailing list > >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Tuesday 14 March 2006 17:05, Anthony Liguori wrote:> There seems to be a large number of xm-test failures in current tip. Is > anyone else seeing this (~15 FAILs). I''m attempting to figure out what > changeset broke things.Actually I''m seeing even worse, I have a report of 36 Fails here, and am trying to investigate. -Paul Larson _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
The numbers I was seeing before were someone untrusted, so I ran it again in a more controlled environment. Changeset is 9238:c445d4a0dd76 Xm-test execution summary: PASS: 109 FAIL: 7 XPASS: 0 XFAIL: 3 Details: FAIL: 09_block_attach_and_dettach_device_check_data_pos Failed to attach block device /proc/partitions does not show that! FAIL: 02_block-list_attachbd_pos Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU FAIL: 03_block-list_anotherbd_pos Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU XFAIL: 02_network_local_ping_pos ping loopback failed for size 65507. ping eth0 failed for size 65507. XFAIL: 05_network_dom0_ping_pos Ping to dom0 failed for size 65507. XFAIL: 11_network_domU_ping_pos Ping failed for size 65507. FAIL: 02_vtpm-cat_pcrs virtual TPM manager must be started to run this test _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Paul Larson wrote:> The numbers I was seeing before were someone untrusted, so I ran it again in a > more controlled environment. Changeset is 9238:c445d4a0dd76 >Have you ran it a few times? I was seeing vary number of failures each time I ran it. Regards, Anthony Liguori> Xm-test execution summary: > PASS: 109 > FAIL: 7 > XPASS: 0 > XFAIL: 3 > > > Details: > > FAIL: 09_block_attach_and_dettach_device_check_data_pos > Failed to attach block device /proc/partitions does not show that! > > FAIL: 02_block-list_attachbd_pos > Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU > > FAIL: 03_block-list_anotherbd_pos > Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU > > XFAIL: 02_network_local_ping_pos > ping loopback failed for size 65507. ping eth0 failed for size 65507. > > XFAIL: 05_network_dom0_ping_pos > Ping to dom0 failed for size 65507. > > XFAIL: 11_network_domU_ping_pos > Ping failed for size 65507. > > FAIL: 02_vtpm-cat_pcrs > virtual TPM manager must be started to run this test > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:31:51PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:> Paul Larson wrote: > >The numbers I was seeing before were someone untrusted, so I ran it again > >in a more controlled environment. Changeset is 9238:c445d4a0dd76 > > > Have you ran it a few times? I was seeing vary number of failures each > time I ran it. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > >Xm-test execution summary: > > PASS: 109 > > FAIL: 7 > > XPASS: 0 > > XFAIL: 3 > > > > > >Details: > > > > FAIL: 09_block_attach_and_dettach_device_check_data_pos > > Failed to attach block device /proc/partitions does not show that! > > > > FAIL: 02_block-list_attachbd_pos > > Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU > > > > FAIL: 03_block-list_anotherbd_pos > > Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainUWhen these three fail together, I usually find that the guest is crashing (xm-test cannot cat /proc/partitions for that reason). If you can reproduce it manually, and get the guest''s oops, then that would be very useful. Ewan. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel