On 7/3/20 9:50 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 01.07.2020 um 14:58 hat Philippe Mathieu-Daudé geschrieben: >> On 6/29/20 11:34 PM, Klaus Jensen wrote: >>> On Jun 29 14:07, no-re...@patchew.org wrote: >>>> Patchew URL: >>>> https://patchew.org/QEMU/20200629202053.1223342-1-...@irrelevant.dk/ >> >>>> --- /tmp/qemu-test/src/tests/qemu-iotests/040.out 2020-06-29 >>>> 20:12:10.000000000 +0000 >>>> +++ /tmp/qemu-test/build/tests/qemu-iotests/040.out.bad 2020-06-29 >>>> 20:58:48.288790818 +0000 >>>> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@ >>>> +WARNING:qemu.machine:qemu received signal 9: >>>> /tmp/qemu-test/build/tests/qemu-iotests/../../x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 >>>> -display none -vga none -chardev >>>> socket,id=mon,path=/tmp/tmp.Jdol0fPScQ/qemu-21749-monitor.sock -mon >>>> chardev=mon,mode=control -qtest >>>> unix:path=/tmp/tmp.Jdol0fPScQ/qemu-21749-qtest.sock -accel qtest >>>> -nodefaults -display none -accel qtest >>>> +WARNING:qemu.machine:qemu received signal 9: >>>> /tmp/qemu-test/build/tests/qemu-iotests/../../x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 >>>> -display none -vga none -chardev >>>> socket,id=mon,path=/tmp/tmp.Jdol0fPScQ/qemu-21749-monitor.sock -mon >>>> chardev=mon,mode=control -qtest >>>> unix:path=/tmp/tmp.Jdol0fPScQ/qemu-21749-qtest.sock -accel qtest >>>> -nodefaults -display none -accel qtest >> >> Kevin, Max, can iotests/040 be affected by this change? > > The diffstat of this series looks like it doesn't touch anything outside > of the nvme emuation, which isn't used by this test, so at least I'd say > it's not the fault of the patch series. > > I think test cases use SIGKILL primarily in timeout handlers, so maybe > the test host was overloaded and didn't shutdown QEMU in time so it was > killed. There is no actually failing test case: > > ........................................................... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ran 59 tests > > You would have 'F' or 'E' for fail/error instead of '.' otherwise.
TIL how to read that line :) Thanks for your analysis Kevin! > > Kevin > >>> >>> >>> Hmm, I can't seem to reproduce this locally and the test succeeded on >>> the next series[1] that is based on this. >>> >>> Is this a flaky test? Or a bad test runner? I'm of course worried when >>> a qcow2 test fails and I touch something else than the nvme device ;) >>> >>> >>> [1]: https://patchew.org/QEMU/20200629203155.1236860-1-...@irrelevant.dk/ >>> >> >
