On 04/07/2017 06:11 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 04/07/2017 01:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2017 07:58 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>> tl;dr:
>>>>> Please apply
>>>>>
>>>>> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
>>>>> partially revert "xen: Remove event channel notification through
>>>>> Xen PCI platform device"
>>>>>
>>>>> to all stable branches which have a version of the original broken
>>>>> commit. This includes at least 4.9.y.
>>>>>
>>>>> Background:
>>>>>
>>>>> osstest service owner writes ("[linux-4.9 baseline test] 107238: tolerable FAIL"):
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-intel 13 xen-boot/l1 fail never pass
>>>>> osstest doesn't consider this a regresion because it looks for
>>>>> regressions within a branch, and this is the first test of Linux 4.9.
>>>>> However, this is a regression from the kernel we are currently using.
>>>>>
>>>>> L1 dom0 console log:
>>>>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/107238/test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-intel/huxelrebe0---var-log-xen-osstest-serial-l1.guest.osstest.log
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to have got stuck halfway through booting.
>>>>>
>>>>> The message
>>>>> (XEN) *** Serial input -> Xen (type 'CTRL-x' three times to switch input to DOM0)
>>>>> shows where osstest timed out on this test, and started its log
>>>>> capture process (including collecting debug key output).
>>>>>
>>>>> Complete logs for this job here:
>>>>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/107238/test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-intel/info.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen Gross tells me that this is due to the lack of
>>>>> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ian.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Stefano, Boris: did you already request a backport of this commit?
>>>>> If not, why not ?
>>>> No, but this should indeed be backported to 4.9+
>>> Boris, are you going to do that?
>> Is there anything that needs to be done beyond just applying it to 4.9
>> (4.10 apparently already has it).
> No, I don't think so. 4.9 already has the offending commit.
Looks like there will be a new version of the original patch
(72a9b186292) so we should hold off with backport request to 4.9:
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-04/msg01468.html
-boris