| Message ID | 818b08af-3077-7003-63eb-614fa459d01c@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iotest 30 failing | expand |
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 17:48, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Based on commit 1ed9228f63e (ericb/tags/pull-nbd-2021-02-02-v2) > I got: > > TEST iotest-qcow2: 030 [fail] Yes; see also this thread: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/9e71568c-ce4a-f844-fbd3-a4a59f850d74@redhat.com/ Can somebody write a simple patch to disable the test entirely, please? It's too unreliable to be in our CI set. thanks -- PMM
04.02.2021 20:51, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 17:48, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Based on commit 1ed9228f63e (ericb/tags/pull-nbd-2021-02-02-v2) >> I got: >> >> TEST iotest-qcow2: 030 [fail] > > Yes; see also this thread: > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/9e71568c-ce4a-f844-fbd3-a4a59f850d74@redhat.com/ > > Can somebody write a simple patch to disable the test entirely, > please? It's too unreliable to be in our CI set. > I can.. Still, maybe I'll try tomorrow to make v2 from my "[PATCH RFC 0/5] Fix accidental crash in iotest 30"? It would be very interesting will it fail after that fix. My experiments shows that my patches helps. But the question is do we really have the same crash in all these reports or not. So I think it worth taking my fix (even being incomplete solution) to understand do we ignore some unknown bug.
On 2/4/21 11:38 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > 04.02.2021 20:51, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 17:48, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Based on commit 1ed9228f63e (ericb/tags/pull-nbd-2021-02-02-v2) >>> I got: >>> >>> TEST iotest-qcow2: 030 [fail] >> >> Yes; see also this thread: >> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/9e71568c-ce4a-f844-fbd3-a4a59f850d74@redhat.com/ >> >> Can somebody write a simple patch to disable the test entirely, >> please? It's too unreliable to be in our CI set. >> > > I can.. > > Still, maybe I'll try tomorrow to make v2 from my "[PATCH RFC 0/5] Fix accidental crash in iotest 30"? > > It would be very interesting will it fail after that fix. My experiments shows that my patches helps. But the question is do we really have the same crash in all these reports or not. So I think it worth taking my fix (even being incomplete solution) to understand do we ignore some unknown bug. > Today's master passes the test for me, yesterday's failed. Was something changed or is it just flicky.. Ciao, Claudio
--- /builds/philmd/qemu/tests/qemu-iotests/030.out +++ 030.out.bad @@ -1,5 +1,47 @@ -........................... +WARNING:qemu.machine:qemu received signal 11; command: "/builds/philmd/qemu/build/tests/qemu-iotests/../../qemu-system-x86_64 -display none -vga none -chardev socket,id=mon,path=/tmp/tmphop581f2/qemu-12072-monitor.sock -mon chardev=mon,mode=control -qtest unix:path=/tmp/tmphop581f2/qemu-12072-qtest.sock -accel qtest -nodefaults -display none -accel qtest -drive if=virtio,id=drive0,file=/builds/philmd/qemu/build/tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/img-8.img,format=qcow2,cache=writeback,aio=threads,backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.node-name=node0,backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.node-name=node1,backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.node-name=node2,backing.backing.backing.backing.backing.node-name=node3,backing.backing.backing.backing.node-name=node4,backing.backing.backing.node-name=node5,backing.backing.node-name=node6,backing.node-name=node7,node-name=node8" +.........EE................. https://gitlab.com/philmd/qemu/-/jobs/1008007132