"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 19698 linux-arm-xen real [real]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/19698/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-armhf-armhf-xl 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel 9 guest-start fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass
build-armhf-pvops 4 kernel-build fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 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-qemuu-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-pair 17 guest-migrate/src_host/dst_host fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 7 windows-install fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 7 windows-install fail never pass
version targeted for testing:
linux 6e4664525b1db28f8c4e1130957f70a94c19213e
baseline version:
linux 6e4664525b1db28f8c4e1130957f70a94c19213e
jobs:
build-amd64 pass
build-armhf pass
build-i386 pass
build-amd64-pvops pass
build-armhf-pvops fail
build-i386-pvops pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl pass
test-armhf-armhf-xl blocked
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 fail
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.
xen.org writes ("[linux-arm-xen baseline test] 19698: 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 19698 linux-arm-xen real [real]
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/19698/
>
> Failures :-/ but no regressions.
>
> Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
...> build-armhf-pvops 4 kernel-build fail never pass
BC kernel/timeconst.h
/bin/sh: 1: bc: not found
make[1]: *** [kernel/timeconst.h] Error 127
make: *** [kernel] Error 2
I will arrange for bc to be installed.
Ian.
Ian Campbell
2013-Sep-17 14:55 UTC
Re: [linux-arm-xen baseline test] 19698: tolerable FAIL
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 15:40 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:> xen.org writes ("[linux-arm-xen baseline test] 19698: 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 19698 linux-arm-xen real [real] > > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/19698/ > > > > Failures :-/ but no regressions. > > > > Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking: > ... > > build-armhf-pvops 4 kernel-build fail never pass > > BC kernel/timeconst.h > /bin/sh: 1: bc: not found > make[1]: *** [kernel/timeconst.h] Error 127 > make: *** [kernel] Error 2 > > I will arrange for bc to be installed.Thanks! How did I not see this I wonder -- I installed the box using ./ts-foo and certainly didn''t install anything extra by hand. Oh well. Ian.
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [linux-arm-xen baseline test] 19698: tolerable
FAIL"):> On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 15:40 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I will arrange for bc to be installed.
>
> Thanks!
>
> How did I not see this I wonder -- I installed the box using ./ts-foo
> and certainly didn''t install anything extra by hand.
Maybe it''s installed on wheezy by default, but not squeeze. I
don''t
think the build-armhf-pvops job is using squeeze.
Ian.
Ian Campbell
2013-Sep-17 15:04 UTC
Re: [linux-arm-xen baseline test] 19698: tolerable FAIL
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 15:58 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [linux-arm-xen baseline test] 19698: tolerable FAIL"): > > On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 15:40 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > I will arrange for bc to be installed. > > > > Thanks! > > > > How did I not see this I wonder -- I installed the box using ./ts-foo > > and certainly didn''t install anything extra by hand. > > Maybe it''s installed on wheezy by default, but not squeeze. I don''t > think the build-armhf-pvops job is using squeeze.Oh, it looks like it ran on army, which doesn''t get regrooved. Was that intentional or were you aiming for marilith? As for why bc isn''t installed on army... I dunno, but I''ve done so now... Army is running Wheezy BTW. I''m not sure if you meant build-armhg-pvops should be using Squeeze or Wheezy.> > Ian.