On 21.01.2014 03:01, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 21.01.2014 02:18, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 21.01.2014 01:55, Branko Čibej wrote: > >> I've added a test case to testdir.c to exercise this code in > parallel. > > r1559873, original patch (with slightly tweaked comments) and > test case. > > Bert, can you please double-check that this works on Windows? > > Also r1559878 (1.5.x) and r1559879 (1.4.x). > > -- Brane > > > I see intermittent failures testing the 1.5.x branch on Linux (4 > cores, 8 threads) after picking up your new testcase. The two > variations seen the most are > > testdir : |Line 84: expected <0>, but saw <2> > testdir : \Line 87: expected <0>, but saw <2> > > I've also seen a single failure at line 85 as well as this one that > needs to be recovered from manually: > testdir : -Line 199: expected <0>, but saw <39> (39 is > "Directory not empty") > > Current state as of the unrecoverable failure: > $ find data/prll/ > data/prll/ > data/prll/11 > data/prll/11/12 > data/prll/11/12/13 > data/prll/11/12/13/14 > data/prll/11/12/13/14/15data > data/prll/11/12/13/14/15data/prll > data/prll/11/12/13/14/15data/prll/11 > data/prll/11/12/13/14/15data/prll/11/12
"Interesting". I'll take a look. > I didn't see a failure on Windows (2 virtualized processors). Thanks. > Also, can you add a CHANGES entry in the 1.4.x and 1.5.x branches? Will do, thanks for the reminder. -- Brane
