From owner-freebsd-testing@freebsd.org  Mon Apr  1 15:11:44 2019
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-testing@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8F1156649F
 for <freebsd-testing@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Mon,  1 Apr 2019 15:11:43 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org)
Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)
 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256)
 (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org",
 Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DD817324C;
 Mon,  1 Apr 2019 15:11:43 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail-lj1-f171.google.com (mail-lj1-f171.google.com
 [209.85.208.171])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK))
 (Authenticated sender: kevans)
 by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F9D01D6F4;
 Mon,  1 Apr 2019 15:11:43 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org)
Received: by mail-lj1-f171.google.com with SMTP id q66so8515810ljq.7;
 Mon, 01 Apr 2019 08:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUis9kViDdoUwzqNYhwttxVMlfWK/LdmlLUF4k8uXvqhD8Ne/hV
 Tf0tA7B9qWkE3S2ueX3ISxPfxXzA3sY9f1QKX6g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqym1NnLiIl/mRz3Q1mfewjHgcAmTozoxtSM1jEQchoQVqEuGeLjIAO3Lsy0Ue9uhPNtZIfR+/SuFxAofbCNlt4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5c7:: with SMTP id 190mr34128686ljf.108.1554131501823; 
 Mon, 01 Apr 2019 08:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKBkRUz5zBfn=Aw4R_Z3mUgcxi55EBkOpKKSpAYyL=3r8iZkPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACNAnaFC=N4K9_yqhUd_W_cDay3dH_Jss6RgCrguJw0rambMLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <41F71A29-A934-408D-B57D-844EB4BC3C83@gmail.com>
 <CACNAnaEHbZq7Bve2YdV92Nyf40g9DY==rSJXP2zHiEcpO3ob-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKBkRUy8vvez-aJ6hJHNbM_O+Lutvm5A-XzjGYNc508ojyjHRw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKBkRUy8vvez-aJ6hJHNbM_O+Lutvm5A-XzjGYNc508ojyjHRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:11:20 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACNAnaFtVFg=XUhJB9qhh4EtTrangLrqvFhJ6w-9ydikNnstOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACNAnaFtVFg=XUhJB9qhh4EtTrangLrqvFhJ6w-9ydikNnstOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD CI Weekly Report 2019-03-24
To: Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org>
Cc: Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>, freebsd-testing@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8DD817324C
X-Spamd-Bar: --
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.97 / 15.00];
 local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org];
 NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0];
 NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.98)[-0.976,0];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:2610:1c1:1::/48, country:US];
 NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Testing on FreeBSD <freebsd-testing.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-testing>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-testing-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-testing/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-testing-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-testing>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-testing-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 15:11:44 -0000

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:08 AM Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:10 PM Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > Looking back at the NetBSD history, I do see that you upstreamed the
> > 64M limit and dropped the requirements from 120M to 64M in the
> > metadata. =-( Apologies for not researching that more closely- I had
> > only seen that they upped the setrlimit ~two weeks ago and assumed it
> > was safe at this point.
>
> r345516 does fix the case, and the MFC waiting period (3 days) has
> passed.  Do you want to MFC it and fix stable/12?
>

If it's OK with (or not objected to by) Enji, then most certainly. I'm
kind of curious about this test case having timed out before the
rlimit was imposed, but a lot of the bits tested have also undergone a
major facelift in that timespan so perhaps it's a non-issue now.