On 03/22/2017 12:01 PM, Jeff Cody wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:37:15AM -0400, John Snow wrote: >> ping, is this the only issue? Any feedback? If this can hit 2.9 that >> would be good. >> > > The series looks fine to me, and I can patch up the nit from patchew when > applying. But do you happen to have a qemu-iotest for this case, or is it > not very feasible to create one? >
I might need a hint from Paolo on how; my reproducer ATM is to literally boot a Fedora VM and issue reboots/QMP commands and manually observe a hang. (Which is pretty subjective ...) An iotest version would probably involve using the qtest socket to issue a PCI reset of some sort inbetween QMP commands as necessary, but testing for a hang in iotests seems race-prone. I have no idea how long this hang would last on other machines, for instance. There might be a more fool-proof automated testing method, but at the second I'm drawing a blank. >> >> On 03/16/2017 05:28 PM, no-re...@patchew.org wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for >>> more information: >>> >>> Type: series >>> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] block: pause block jobs for >>> bdrv_drain_begin/end >>> Message-id: 20170316212351.13797-1-js...@redhat.com >>> >>> === TEST SCRIPT BEGIN === >>> #!/bin/bash >>> >>> BASE=base >>> n=1 >>> total=$(git log --oneline $BASE.. | wc -l) >>> failed=0 >>> >>> # Useful git options >>> git config --local diff.renamelimit 0 >>> git config --local diff.renames True >>> >>> commits="$(git log --format=%H --reverse $BASE..)" >>> for c in $commits; do >>> echo "Checking PATCH $n/$total: $(git log -n 1 --format=%s $c)..." >>> if ! git show $c --format=email | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --mailback -; >>> then >>> failed=1 >>> echo >>> fi >>> n=$((n+1)) >>> done >>> >>> exit $failed >>> === TEST SCRIPT END === >>> >>> Updating 3c8cf5a9c21ff8782164d1def7f44bd888713384 >>> From https://github.com/patchew-project/qemu >>> * [new tag] patchew/20170316212351.13797-1-js...@redhat.com -> >>> patchew/20170316212351.13797-1-js...@redhat.com >>> Switched to a new branch 'test' >>> 1cca6f3 blockjob: add devops to blockjob backends >>> 864d906 block-backend: add drained_begin / drained_end ops >>> 5e4f22d blockjob: add block_job_start_shim >>> >>> === OUTPUT BEGIN === >>> Checking PATCH 1/3: blockjob: add block_job_start_shim... >>> Checking PATCH 2/3: block-backend: add drained_begin / drained_end ops... >>> ERROR: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 14) >>> #70: FILE: block/block-backend.c:1903: >>> + if (blk->dev_ops && blk->dev_ops->drained_end) { >>> + blk->dev_ops->drained_end(blk->dev_opaque); >>> >>> total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 67 lines checked >>> >>> Your patch has style problems, please review. If any of these errors >>> are false positives report them to the maintainer, see >>> CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. >>> >>> Checking PATCH 3/3: blockjob: add devops to blockjob backends... >>> === OUTPUT END === >>> >>> Test command exited with code: 1 >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Email generated automatically by Patchew [http://patchew.org/]. >>> Please send your feedback to patchew-de...@freelists.org >>>