On 1/24/19 8:34 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote: > On Thu 24 Jan 2019 11:11:06 AM CET, Alberto Garcia wrote: >> On Wed 23 Jan 2019 06:00:49 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> 093 and 136 seem really flaky to me. I can reproduce that by running: >> >> That's interesting, I can make 093 fail quite easily now (I haven't >> tested the other one yet), but I don't think this happened >> earlier. I'll try to figure out what's going on. > > I bisected this and it seems that 093 started to fail after this: > > 8258292e monitor: Remove "x-oob", offer capability "oob" unconditionally > > I'm not familiar with that option so I need to investigate.
We've got several tests failing after making x-oob unconditional; here's another thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-01/msg05587.html Could it be that the test was using some sort of QMP command as an attempt to synchronize state, but the OOB handling is now making it not a reliable sync point? -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
