flight 17914 xen-unstable real [real]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/17914/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel 9 guest-start fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass
version targeted for testing:
xen 1c61028eabb4e2bb37f7541915c1bee4abab94e8
baseline version:
xen 1c61028eabb4e2bb37f7541915c1bee4abab94e8
jobs:
build-amd64 pass
build-armhf pass
build-i386 pass
build-amd64-oldkern pass
build-i386-oldkern pass
build-amd64-pvops pass
build-i386-pvops pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl pass
test-amd64-i386-xl pass
test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-amd pass
test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-amd pass
test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-credit2 pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel fail
test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel pass
test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-intel pass
test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu pass
test-amd64-amd64-pair pass
test-amd64-i386-pair pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf-pin pass
test-amd64-amd64-pv pass
test-amd64-i386-pv pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 fail
test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 fail
test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 fail
------------------------------------------------------------
sg-report-flight on woking.cam.xci-test.com
logs: /home/xc_osstest/logs
images: /home/xc_osstest/images
Logs, config files, etc. are available at
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs
Test harness code can be found at
http://xenbits.xensource.com/gitweb?p=osstest.git;a=summary
Published tested tree is already up to date.
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:27 AM, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> flight 17914 xen-unstable real [real] > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/17914/ > > Failures :-/ but no regressions. > > Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking: > test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel 9 guest-start fail never pass > test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check fail never pass > test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass > test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass > test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass > test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass > test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass > test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check fail never pass > test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop fail never pass > test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop fail never pass > test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass > test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass > test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass > > version targeted for testing: > xen 1c61028eabb4e2bb37f7541915c1bee4abab94e8 > baseline version: > xen 1c61028eabb4e2bb37f7541915c1bee4abab94e8It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it). What''s the procedure for getting this tagged? It would be good for this one also to have a tarball available for tomorrow''s test day. -George
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable
FAIL"):> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good
> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it).
It looks like we still need to update some sonames. See patch below.
Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ? I think
we probably do.
I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1.
Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream.
We then need to update xen.git''s Config.mk to refer to those tags.
Thanks,
Ian.
commit 676688c11a3fa0e86572a8c2262aa581fbbcf870
Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Date: Tue May 7 11:39:10 2013 +0100
tools: Bump some library sonames
libxc (libxenctrl, libxenguest):
New claim_enabled field in struct xc_dom_image;
New nr_outstanding_pages field in struct xc_dominfo;
New fields in struct xc_hvm_build_args (xenguest.h).
libxl:
new fields in dominfo domain_build_info device_vfb device_vkb
device_disk etc. etc. etc.
libxlu #includes libxl headers so needs to inherit its new soname
Use Xen version for new sonames since we don''t in fact guarantee
ABI (as opposed to API) stability across releases.
xenstore (libxenstore):
New flag XS_UNWATCH_FILTER, so bump minor version only.
This was the result of reviewing the output from:
git-checkout staging
cd tools
git-diff RELEASE-4.2.2 `find -name \*.h`
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
diff --git a/tools/libxc/Makefile b/tools/libxc/Makefile
index 640e333..b200123 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/Makefile
+++ b/tools/libxc/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
XEN_ROOT = $(CURDIR)/../..
include $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/Rules.mk
-MAJOR = 4.2
+MAJOR = 4.3
MINOR = 0
CTRL_SRCS-y :diff --git a/tools/libxl/Makefile b/tools/libxl/Makefile
index 2984051..cf214bb 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/Makefile
+++ b/tools/libxl/Makefile
@@ -5,11 +5,11 @@
XEN_ROOT = $(CURDIR)/../..
include $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/Rules.mk
-MAJOR = 2.0
+MAJOR = 4.3
MINOR = 0
-XLUMAJOR = 1.0
-XLUMINOR = 1
+XLUMAJOR = 4.3
+XLUMINOR = 0
CFLAGS += -Werror -Wno-format-zero-length -Wmissing-declarations \
-Wno-declaration-after-statement -Wformat-nonliteral
diff --git a/tools/xenstore/Makefile b/tools/xenstore/Makefile
index 1bb6e58..262f401 100644
--- a/tools/xenstore/Makefile
+++ b/tools/xenstore/Makefile
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ XEN_ROOT=$(CURDIR)/../..
include $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/Rules.mk
MAJOR = 3.0
-MINOR = 2
+MINOR = 3
CFLAGS += -Werror
CFLAGS += -I.
> tools: Bump some library sonames > > libxc (libxenctrl, libxenguest): > New claim_enabled field in struct xc_dom_image; > New nr_outstanding_pages field in struct xc_dominfo; > New fields in struct xc_hvm_build_args (xenguest.h). > > libxl: > new fields in dominfo domain_build_info device_vfb device_vkb > device_disk etc. etc. etc. > libxlu #includes libxl headers so needs to inherit its new soname > Use Xen version for new sonames since we don''t in fact guarantee > ABI (as opposed to API) stability across releases. > > xenstore (libxenstore): > New flag XS_UNWATCH_FILTER, so bump minor version only. > > This was the result of reviewing the output from: > git-checkout staging > cd tools > git-diff RELEASE-4.2.2 `find -name \*.h` > > Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
On Tue, 7 May 2013, Ian Jackson wrote:> I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1. > Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream. > We then need to update xen.git''s Config.mk to refer to those tags.done
commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136
Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Date: Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100
README: update version number
Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc". Also remove
the
paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2. At some point we should
replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
diff --git a/README b/README
index 6c4742f..595d0c8 100644
--- a/README
+++ b/README
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
#################################
- __ __ _ _ ____
- \ \/ /___ _ __ | || | |___ \
- \ // _ \ ''_ \ | || |_ __) |
- / \ __/ | | | |__ _| / __/
- /_/\_\___|_| |_| |_|(_)_____|
+__ __ _ _ _____
+\ \/ /___ _ __ | || | |___ / _ __ ___
+ \ // _ \ ''_ \ | || |_ |_ \ _____| ''__/ __|
+ / \ __/ | | | |__ _| ___) |_____| | | (__
+/_/\_\___|_| |_| |_|(_)____/ |_| \___|
#################################
@@ -19,11 +19,6 @@ is freely-distributable Open Source software, released under
the GNU
GPL. Since its initial public release, Xen has grown a large
development community, spearheaded by xen.org (http://www.xen.org).
-The 4.2 release offers excellent performance, hardware support and
-enterprise-grade features such as x86_32-PAE, x86_64, SMP guests and
-live relocation of VMs. Ports to Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD and Solaris
-are available from the community.
-
This file contains some quick-start instructions to install Xen on
your system. For more information see http:/www.xen.org/ and
http://wiki.xen.org/
On 07/05/13 13:42, Ian Jackson wrote:> commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136 > Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> > Date: Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100 > > README: update version number > > Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc". Also remove the > paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2. At some point we should > replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3. > > Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 13:42 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:> commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136 > Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> > Date: Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100 > > README: update version number > > Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc". Also remove the > paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2. At some point we should > replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3. > > Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 13:43 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:> On 07/05/13 13:42, Ian Jackson wrote: > > commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136 > > Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> > > Date: Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100 > > > > README: update version number > > > > Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc". Also remove the > > paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2. At some point we should > > replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> > > Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>Has one of you you put "update 4.3-rc into 4.3" onto a checklist somewhere?
On 07/05/13 13:59, Ian Campbell wrote:> On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 13:43 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 07/05/13 13:42, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136 >>> Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> >>> Date: Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100 >>> >>> README: update version number >>> >>> Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc". Also remove the >>> paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2. At some point we should >>> replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> >> Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> > Has one of you you put "update 4.3-rc into 4.3" onto a checklist > somewhere?Now I have. :-) BTW, can we take "Audit changes / bump SONAMEs" off the list, or might that need to be done for other libraries? -George
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH] README: update version
number"):> BTW, can we take "Audit changes / bump SONAMEs" off the list, or
might
> that need to be done for other libraries?
That is what I think I have just done.
I didn''t look at anything outside tools/ but I think that''s
right ?
Ian.
>>> On 07.05.13 at 12:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"): >> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good >> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it). > > It looks like we still need to update some sonames. See patch below. > > Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ? I think > we probably do. > > I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1. > Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream. > We then need to update xen.git''s Config.mk to refer to those tags.Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It''s not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. George, am I taking it right that with the tagging of RC1 the tree freeze is over, and I can commit the few fixes that accumulated over the last couple of days? Or should I wait until the tagged commit got pushed too? Jan
On 07/05/13 15:12, Jan Beulich wrote:>>>> On 07.05.13 at 12:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"): >>> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good >>> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it). >> It looks like we still need to update some sonames. See patch below. >> >> Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ? I think >> we probably do. >> >> I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1. >> Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream. >> We then need to update xen.git''s Config.mk to refer to those tags. > Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without > updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It''s > not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and > redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. > > George, am I taking it right that with the tagging of RC1 the tree > freeze is over, and I can commit the few fixes that accumulated > over the last couple of days? Or should I wait until the tagged > commit got pushed too?I wrote in a different e-mail "The tree is now open for commits again", but maybe you missed it because it was after the bit about the RTC bug. -George
>>> On 07.05.13 at 16:16, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > On 07/05/13 15:12, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 07.05.13 at 12:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >>> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable > FAIL"): >>>> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good >>>> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it). >>> It looks like we still need to update some sonames. See patch below. >>> >>> Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ? I think >>> we probably do. >>> >>> I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1. >>> Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream. >>> We then need to update xen.git''s Config.mk to refer to those tags. >> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without >> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It''s >> not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and >> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. >> >> George, am I taking it right that with the tagging of RC1 the tree >> freeze is over, and I can commit the few fixes that accumulated >> over the last couple of days? Or should I wait until the tagged >> commit got pushed too? > > I wrote in a different e-mail "The tree is now open for commits again", > but maybe you missed it because it was after the bit about the RTC bug.No, I''m sorry for the noise:, I should have read _all_ xen-devel mails before replying to this one. Jan
On 07/05/13 15:20, Jan Beulich wrote:>>>> On 07.05.13 at 16:16, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >> On 07/05/13 15:12, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 07.05.13 at 12:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >>>> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable >> FAIL"): >>>>> It looks like this passed all the tests -- it seems like a good >>>>> candidate for RC0 (or RC1, whatever we want to call it). >>>> It looks like we still need to update some sonames. See patch below. >>>> >>>> Also, do we want to update the version number in the README ? I think >>>> we probably do. >>>> >>>> I have tagged the qemu-xen-traditional tree with xen-4.3.0-rc1. >>>> Stefano, please make an appropriate tag in qemu-xen-upstream. >>>> We then need to update xen.git''s Config.mk to refer to those tags. >>> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without >>> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It''s >>> not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and >>> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. >>> >>> George, am I taking it right that with the tagging of RC1 the tree >>> freeze is over, and I can commit the few fixes that accumulated >>> over the last couple of days? Or should I wait until the tagged >>> commit got pushed too? >> I wrote in a different e-mail "The tree is now open for commits again", >> but maybe you missed it because it was after the bit about the RTC bug. > No, I''m sorry for the noise:, I should have read _all_ xen-devel mails > before replying to this one.Oh, right -- fair enough. :-) The benefit of a separate e-mail is that it catches people''s eye who haven''t been following the thread; the cost is that there''s a disconnect in the conversation... -George
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable
FAIL"):> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without
> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional?
It''s
> not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and
> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist.
You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ? I wasn''t sure
whether that ought to be changed. It''s on the checklist but I
don''t
know what the usual practice is for an RC.
Ian.
On 07/05/2013 05:42, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> commit 0ddfb3c5fbfd65d453461a58f65aa1b3172d0136 > Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> > Date: Tue May 7 13:41:15 2013 +0100 > > README: update version number > > Updated the figlet version number to "Xen 4.3-rc". Also remove the > paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.2. At some point we should > replace it with a paragraph touting the benefits of Xen 4.3. > > Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
>>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"): >> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without >> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It''s >> not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and >> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. > > You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ? I wasn''t sure > whether that ought to be changed. It''s on the checklist but I don''t > know what the usual practice is for an RC.Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don''t mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs. Jan
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:46 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:> >>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"): > >> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without > >> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It''s > >> not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and > >> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. > > > > You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ? I wasn''t sure > > whether that ought to be changed. It''s on the checklist but I don''t > > know what the usual practice is for an RC. > > Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don''t > mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs.It would have been useful so that dmesg logs for people building from the tarball will contain the right version. People building from git/hg are less of a concern assuming the latest cset thing still works. Ian.
On 08/05/13 09:33, Ian Campbell wrote:> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:46 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"): >>>> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without >>>> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It''s >>>> not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and >>>> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. >>> You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ? I wasn''t sure >>> whether that ought to be changed. It''s on the checklist but I don''t >>> know what the usual practice is for an RC. >> Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don''t >> mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs. > It would have been useful so that dmesg logs for people building from > the tarball will contain the right version. People building from git/hg > are less of a concern assuming the latest cset thing still works.I don''t think it does: \ \/ /___ _ __ | || | |___ / _ _ _ __ ___| |_ __ _| |__ | | ___ \ // _ \ ''_ \ | || |_ |_ \ __| | | | ''_ \/ __| __/ _` | ''_ \| |/ _ \ / \ __/ | | | |__ _| ___) |__| |_| | | | \__ \ || (_| | |_) | | __/ /_/\_\___|_| |_| |_|(_)____/ \__,_|_| |_|___/\__\__,_|_.__/|_|\___| (XEN) Xen version 4.3-unstable (root@) (gcc (Debian 4.7.2-5) 4.7.2) debug=y Thu May 2 16:29:11 BST 2013 (XEN) Latest ChangeSet: unavailable # xl info host : exile [snip] xen_changeset : unavailable [snip] cc_compile_date : Thu May 2 16:29:11 BST 2013 -George
On 08/05/13 07:46, Jan Beulich wrote:>>>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"): >>> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without >>> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It''s >>> not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and >>> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. >> You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ? I wasn''t sure >> whether that ought to be changed. It''s on the checklist but I don''t >> know what the usual practice is for an RC. > Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don''t > mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs.I think it would be better to update the EXTRAVERSION, but it''s not a terribly big deal I don''t think. -George
>>> On 08.05.13 at 10:33, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:46 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >> > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable > FAIL"): >> >> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without >> >> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It''s >> >> not a dramatic problem (and I don''t see a need to withdraw and >> >> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. >> > >> > You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ? I wasn''t sure >> > whether that ought to be changed. It''s on the checklist but I don''t >> > know what the usual practice is for an RC. >> >> Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don''t >> mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs. > > It would have been useful so that dmesg logs for people building from > the tarball will contain the right version. People building from git/hg > are less of a concern assuming the latest cset thing still works.Which, as we know from a patch posted by Marek Marczykowski that never got applied, currently only works for hg, but not git. Jan