On 02/03/2017 17:07, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 04:54:26PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 02/03/2017 16:39, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:17:39PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 28 February 2017 at 19:12, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> I saw a failure on x86-pull-request that seemed to be because of >>>>> vhost-user-test[1]. However, after restarting the job, it >>>>> passed[2]. >>>> >>>> I'm currently processing a patch which (hopefully) fixes >>>> vhost-user-test's intermittent failures: >>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/732747/ >>> >>> I'm not sure it will solve the issues on hosts without KVM. As >>> far as I can see, if vhost-user-test is working without KVM, it >>> is working by accident. >> >> Well, it has worked for a while before the patch. > > Before which patch?
The one mentioned in the commit message by Marc-André: b0a335e351103bf92f3f9d0bd5759311be8156ac. Paolo > >> As long as you don't >> overwrite code with vhost-user data and then try to run that data, >> things will be fine. Just not something you can use in practice, but it >> works in tests. > > Earlier this week I saw the wait_for_fds assertion (mentioned at > the thread above) on a travis-ci job again, and I was suspecting > it was the same vhost_set_mem_table() + TCG error seen at the > thread above. > > Unfortunately travis-ci overwrote the previous logs when I > restarted the job, and now I can't confirm if it was really the > same vhost_set_mem_table() error. I guess we'll have to simply > wait and see if it fails again. >
