From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Robert Hu <robert.hu@vmm.sh.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [OSSTEST Nested PATCH v11 6/7] Compose the main
 recipe of nested test job
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:00:19 +0800
Message-ID: <1434099619.29629.7.camel@localhost>
References: <1432631304-27347-1-git-send-email-longtaox.pang@intel.com>
	<1432631304-27347-7-git-send-email-longtaox.pang@intel.com>
	<21880.23264.813171.606123@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<86C3224E41A7434B904EC364302132D80E4BFEC4@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<21881.42757.84361.654532@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<1434080545.32731.13.camel@localhost>
	<1434098672.30003.189.camel@citrix.com>
Reply-To: robert.hu@intel.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1434098672.30003.189.camel@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: robert.hu@intel.com, "Pang, LongtaoX" <longtaox.pang@intel.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "wei.liu2@citrix.com" <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 09:44 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 11:42 +0800, Robert Hu wrote:
> > Hi Ian J., because nested Xen isn't that matured at present; it is
> > currently 'tech preview' phase. We now just add some sanity test case to
> > defend current work fruits. We can add more complicated test cases later
> > as nested Xen development moves forward.
> 
> I don't think it needs doing as part of this series, but I do think it
> would be worth adding the standard suite of tests steps to L2 guests
> soon after.
Agree. We can separately add those part in a later patch series.  
> 
> The way osstest deals with test failures i.e. classifying them into "has
> always failed" vs. "regression" means that it is fine to add tests for
> features which aren't mature yet, since they will fall into the "has
> always failed" set and not block pushes. In fact it is in some sense
> good to do this since it gives a concrete set of (necessary but not
> necessarily sufficient) things which need to be fixed for the feature to
> reach maturity.
We would like this test job's failure to be marked 'regression', which
shall block related breaking code's commitment.
We can consider to contribute more code later, including proved/success
test cases (which will fall into regression as this case), and fail test
cases (which shall soon be fixed/developed).
> 
> Ian.
>