On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 1:45:06 AM CET Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 30/01/2020 13:53, Kamil Dudka wrote: > > tests/cp/proc-short-read.sh expects that a pair of subsequent reads from > > /proc/kallsyms will always return the same content. This does not seem to > > be a safe assumption any more. The test has started to fail in our build > > environment. I am not sure how to fix the test. We could probably make > > it use another file from /proc but most of them are much smaller than > > kallsyms and/or suffer from the same problem. Output of the failing test > > follows. > > > > Kamil > > > > > > FAIL: tests/cp/proc-short-read > > ============================== > > > > + compare_ 1 2 > > + diff -u 1 2 > > --- 1 2020-01-29 12:04:36.923963121 +0000 > > +++ 2 2020-01-29 12:04:37.026963484 +0000 > > @@ -114819,81 +114819,132 @@ > > > > 0000000000000000 t nfs_file_direct_read.cold [nfs] > > 0000000000000000 t nfs_file_direct_write.cold [nfs] > > 0000000000000000 r .LC0 [nfs] > > > > -0000000000000000 r .LC2 [nfs] > > -0000000000000000 r __ksymtab_nfs_pgio_current_mirror [nfs] > > -0000000000000000 r __kstrtab_nfs_pgio_current_mirror [nfs] > > > > +0000000000000000 r __func__.87038 [nfs] > > +0000000000000000 t __nfs_revalidate_inode.cold [nfs] > > +0000000000000000 t nfs_revalidate_mapping.cold [nfs] > > +0000000000000000 d nfs_net_ops [nfs] > > +0000000000000000 t exit_nfs_fs [nfs] > > +0000000000000000 r __param_enable_ino64 [nfs] > > +0000000000000000 r __param_str_enable_ino64 [nfs] > > +0000000000000000 r .LC15 [nfs] > > +0000000000000000 r __ksymtab_nfs_fs_type [nfs] > > +0000000000000000 r __kstrtab_nfs_fs_type [nfs] > > > > + fail=1 > > + md5sum /proc/kallsyms > > + md5sum 2 > > + sed 's/ .*//' 3 > > + sed 's/ .*//' 4 > > + compare sum.proc sum.2 > > + compare_dev_null_ sum.proc sum.2 > > + test 2 = 2 > > + test xsum.proc = x/dev/null > > + test xsum.2 = x/dev/null > > + return 2 > > + case $? in > > + compare_ sum.proc sum.2 > > + diff -u sum.proc sum.2 > > --- sum.proc 2020-01-29 12:04:37.172963999 +0000 > > +++ sum.2 2020-01-29 12:04:37.175964009 +0000 > > @@ -1 +1 @@ > > -226cd09830f68c56edda0b9272be66e4 > > +37d7e78173b2a31d5f27cc66aa52e72a > > + fail=1 > > Interesting. > The attached changes to /proc/cpuinfo > which is a bit more awkward, but should be a valid test most of the time, > and is also the file for which the original bug report was against. > > cheers, > Pádraig
Neither the content of /proc/cpuinfo is guaranteed to be immutable because CPUs can go online/offline at run time. Anyway, the proposed patch has passed my quick test. So I think it is an improvement over status quo. Thanks! Kamil
