Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 04:58 PM, Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
>> reopen 9737
>> thanks
>>
>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>>> Bah, this is just a racy test I think.
>>> Hopefully the attached fixes it.
>>
>> Thank you for the patch.
>>
>> I tried it 16 times:
>>
>* 14x PASS, execution time real < 0.4s
>>
>> * 1x test failure (in the 5th run)
>
> So the command exited without receiving SIGINT.
> Or perhaps the touch of the 'received.int' file
> is being done asynch. Anything special about your
> file system?
It's a virtual host on a ESX server farm in our data center.
ecs@mchp320a:~/berny/depot/coreutils-8.14/tests> uname -a
Linux mchp320a 2.6.16.60-0.74.7-smp #1 SMP Fri Nov 26 09:16:10 UTC 2010 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
ecs@mchp320a:~/berny/depot/coreutils-8.14/tests> df -h .
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/vg01-lvol0
50G 15G 33G 31% /user
ecs@mchp320a:~/berny/depot/coreutils-8.14/tests> mount | grep /user
/dev/mapper/vg01-lvol0 on /user type ext3 (rw,acl,user_xattr)
>> * 1x the test lasted 20s (in the 16th run)
>
> But this one passed, which means the command
> did receive the SIGINT, but then didn't exit?
Sounds like one error is shadowing another.
> I'm confused, sorry,
> Pádraig.
That's strange, indeed.
I repeated the test with < 0.2 load 100 times:
the run #5, #18, #28, #53, #58 and #71 resulted in FAIL as above,
and the run #24 and #25 PASSed but took 20 seconds,
all other PASSed within <=0.3s.
Have a nice day,
Berny
