[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: qemu iotest 161 and make check

From: Christian Borntraeger
Subject: Re: qemu iotest 161 and make check
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:25:14 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0

Am 31.03.22 um 09:44 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:

Am 21.02.22 um 11:27 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:

Am 10.02.22 um 18:44 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
10.02.2022 20:13, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 10/02/2022 15.51, Christian Borntraeger wrote:

Am 10.02.22 um 15:47 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
10.02.2022 10:57, Christian Borntraeger wrote:

I do see spurious failures of 161 in our CI, but only when I use
make check with parallelism (-j).
I have not yet figured out which other testcase could interfere

@@ -34,6 +34,8 @@
  *** Commit and then change an option on the backing file

  Formatting 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT.base', fmt=IMGFMT size=1048576
+qemu-img: TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT.base: Failed to get "write" lock

FWIW, qemu_lock_fd_test returns -11 (EAGAIN)
and raw_check_lock_bytes spits this error.

And its coming from here (ret is 0)

int qemu_lock_fd_test(int fd, int64_t start, int64_t len, bool exclusive)
    int ret;
    struct flock fl = {
        .l_whence = SEEK_SET,
        .l_start  = start,
        .l_len    = len,
        .l_type   = exclusive ? F_WRLCK : F_RDLCK,
    ret = fcntl(fd, fcntl_op_getlk, &fl);
    if (ret == -1) {
        return -errno;
    } else {
----->        return fl.l_type == F_UNLCK ? 0 : -EAGAIN;

Is this just some overload situation that we do not recover because we do not 
handle EAGAIN any special.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]