[coreboot] QEMU x86_64 Q35 Automated Test Failure

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 21.04.2015 19:14, Timothy Pearson wrote:
> On 04/21/2015 11:44 AM, Timothy Pearson wrote:
>> On 04/21/2015 11:31 AM, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote:
>>> 2015-04-21 17:31 GMT+02:00 Gregg Levine<gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com>:
>>>> I suspect somehow it was supposed to be internal to hs outfit only.
>>> Timothy provides boot testing of coreboot master with QEmu and a AMD
>>> board that he maintains as a service to the community.
>>>
>>>> And something changed with regards to the logic behind how those
>>>> annoying e-mail messages being sent to us.
>>> The system only sends mails when things look wrong.
>>> Right now coreboot is able to boot, but has issues with the cbmem
>>> console. According to Paul's analysis, that's why it's now reporting a
>>> failure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>
>> This is correct. Please see the thread marked "cbmem console broken on
>> Intel hardware since ec5e5e0" for additional information on the
>> regression in coreboot itself.
>>
>> If the community would like me to stop sending these notifications I
>> will do so; I could also adjust the maximum frequency if desired. As
>> stated this is intended to be a service so that broken boards are
>> detected and repaired; perhaps there should be an alternate way of
>> reporting the test failure (e.g. the board status repository could be
>> modified to store failed tests as well as successful ones?)
>>
>
> After some thought I have limited the notification to a maximum of
> once per day.  This is in line with the default nag settings of other
> projects such as Bugzilla.  Developers wanting to verify that an issue
> has been fixed before the next 24 hour message window should refer to
> the board-status repository, which continues to update at the normal
> rate (within an hour or two of commit to mainline GIT).

Thank you for providing this service. It is very much appreciated.

I would like to make a suggestion, though: The mail size of failure
reports is increasing constantly as long as a boot problem remains
unfixed. Would it make sense to only list the first 5 and last 5 commits
in the failing series and replace the rest with "..." or something similar?

Regards,
Carl-Daniel