On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 11:43 +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 28.07.2020 02:09, Bruce Rogers wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 10:22 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> > > On 7/20/20 8:24 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> > > > I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
> > > >
> >
On 7/28/20 1:10 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 28.07.20 01:09, Bruce Rogers wrote:
>> On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 10:22 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> On 7/20/20 8:24 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
It happens much more rarely, about once
On 28/07/20 13:45, Max Reitz wrote:
>> Is it possible to make a quick testcase using qemu-io?
> This seems to work:
>
> $ qemu-img create -f qcow2 -o cluster_size=512 base.qcow2 512
> $ qemu-img create -f qcow2 -o cluster_size=512 -F qcow2 -b base.qcow2 \
> top.qcow2 1024
> $ qemu-io -c 'write
On 28.07.20 13:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/07/20 13:33, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> Thanks for both your investigation. Does the attached patch help?
>>
>> For me, the reproducer is fixed with your patch.
>
> Is it possible to make a quick testcase using qemu-io?
This seems to
28.07.2020 14:10, Max Reitz wrote:
On 28.07.20 01:09, Bruce Rogers wrote:
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 10:22 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
On 7/20/20 8:24 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
It happens much more rarely, about once every 10 times.
I
On 28/07/20 13:33, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Thanks for both your investigation. Does the attached patch help?
>
> For me, the reproducer is fixed with your patch.
Is it possible to make a quick testcase using qemu-io?
Paolo
28.07.2020 14:10, Max Reitz wrote:
On 28.07.20 01:09, Bruce Rogers wrote:
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 10:22 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
On 7/20/20 8:24 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
It happens much more rarely, about once every 10 times.
I
On 28.07.20 01:09, Bruce Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 10:22 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> On 7/20/20 8:24 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
>>>
>>> It happens much more rarely, about once every 10 times.
>>>
>>> I will sort out the
28.07.2020 02:09, Bruce Rogers wrote:
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 10:22 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
On 7/20/20 8:24 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
It happens much more rarely, about once every 10 times.
I will sort out the data and try to make
28.07.2020 02:09, Bruce Rogers wrote:
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 10:22 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
On 7/20/20 8:24 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
It happens much more rarely, about once every 10 times.
I will sort out the data and try to make
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 10:22 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On 7/20/20 8:24 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> > I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
> >
> > It happens much more rarely, about once every 10 times.
> >
> > I will sort out the data and try to make it even more
On 7/20/20 8:24 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
>
> It happens much more rarely, about once every 10 times.
>
> I will sort out the data and try to make it even more reproducible, then post
> my findings in detail.
>
> Overall I proceeded as
I have now been able to reproduce this on X86 as well.
It happens much more rarely, about once every 10 times.
I will sort out the data and try to make it even more reproducible, then post
my findings in detail.
Overall I proceeded as follows:
1) hooked the savevm code to skip all fields with
Small update on this,
On 7/15/20 1:10 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 7/14/20 4:35 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 14/07/2020 16.29, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have some tiny progress in narrowing down this issue, possibly a qcow2
>>> issue, still unclear,
>>> but
On 7/15/20 1:10 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 7/14/20 4:35 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 14/07/2020 16.29, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have some tiny progress in narrowing down this issue, possibly a qcow2
>>> issue, still unclear,
>>> but involving Kevin Wolf and
Hi Thomas,
On 7/14/20 4:35 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 14/07/2020 16.29, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have some tiny progress in narrowing down this issue, possibly a qcow2
>> issue, still unclear,
>> but involving Kevin Wolf and Max Reitz.
>>
>>
>> The reproducer again:
>>
>>>
On 14/07/2020 16.29, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have some tiny progress in narrowing down this issue, possibly a qcow2
> issue, still unclear,
> but involving Kevin Wolf and Max Reitz.
>
>
> The reproducer again:
>
>>
Hello,
I have some tiny progress in narrowing down this issue, possibly a qcow2 issue,
still unclear,
but involving Kevin Wolf and Max Reitz.
The reproducer again:
> cut---
> diff --git a/cpus.c b/cpus.c
>
On 7/13/20 1:39 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 7/13/20 1:03 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> * Claudio Fontana (cfont...@suse.de) wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> during unrelated work for splitting QTest from the TCG instruction counting
>>> module,
>>>
>>> I encountered what seems
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:03:33 +0100
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> * Claudio Fontana (cfont...@suse.de) wrote:
> > The following workarounds hide the problem (make the test pass):
> >
> > 1) always including the icount field in the (unrelated) timers field that
> > are sent before in the
Hello,
On 7/13/20 1:03 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Claudio Fontana (cfont...@suse.de) wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> during unrelated work for splitting QTest from the TCG instruction counting
>> module,
>>
>> I encountered what seems to be a migration stream issue, which is apparent
>>
* Claudio Fontana (cfont...@suse.de) wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> during unrelated work for splitting QTest from the TCG instruction counting
> module,
>
> I encountered what seems to be a migration stream issue, which is apparent
> only on s390, and only shows in block test 267.
>
> ./check
Hi Paolo,
On 7/12/20 6:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/07/20 12:00, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> Note: only the === -blockdev with a backing file === part of test 267 fails.
>> -blockdev with NBD is ok, like all the rest.
>>
>>
>> Interesting facts about s390 in particular: its save/load code
On 12/07/20 12:00, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> Note: only the === -blockdev with a backing file === part of test 267 fails.
> -blockdev with NBD is ok, like all the rest.
>
>
> Interesting facts about s390 in particular: its save/load code includes the
> transfer of "storage keys",
> which
24 matches
Mail list logo
