Christos Zoulas wrote:
> It could be due to tcsh doing its file descriptor dance differently...
> What shell are you using?
The default shell of the root user. The notion of changing the shell
according to a personal preference doesn't really apply when running
automated tests on a fresh
Date:Sun, 5 Apr 2020 01:26:15 - (UTC)
From:chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas)
Message-ID:
| It could be due to tcsh doing its file descriptor dance differently...
| What shell are you using?
When I run tests against HEAD, I use /bin/sh - the only other
In article <24200.56933.470930.730...@guava.gson.org>,
Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
>Robert Elz wrote:
>> Not an idea, but a possibility - the change to route.c (1.167) was
>> unimportant - it doesn't really matter (to the tests) if it does
>> anything useful or not - it is possible that it just
Robert Elz wrote:
> Not an idea, but a possibility - the change to route.c (1.167) was
> unimportant - it doesn't really matter (to the tests) if it does
> anything useful or not - it is possible that it just happened that the
> fd that the setsockopt() was being performed on was a socket (a
Date:Sat, 4 Apr 2020 16:37:08 +0300
From:Andreas Gustafsson
Message-ID: <24200.36228.881611.989...@guava.gson.org>
| Does anyone have an idea why the tests didn't start failing
| immediately when route.c 1.167 was committed, but only after the
| seemingly
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 09:38:19AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I am still puzzled by this as the tests never failed on my machine!
I still see test failure on macppc and sparc64, some of them might
be related to libpcap being miscompiled (see my other PR).
Martin
> On Apr 4, 2020, at 9:37 AM, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
>
> Martin Husemann wrote:
>> I analyzed this particular one (202 steps back because rump.netstat dumps
>> core) - will fix it soon.
>
> With martin's changes, the number of unexpected test failures
> went down from 413 to 6 on my bare
Martin Husemann wrote:
> I analyzed this particular one (202 steps back because rump.netstat dumps
> core) - will fix it soon.
With martin's changes, the number of unexpected test failures
went down from 413 to 6 on my bare metal testbed:
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 06:04:44PM +0300, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > >That should take care of the failing network related tests that contain
> > >rump.route commands, but that's not all of the failing tests.
> >
> > Thanks! I fixed that now. Let's see how many break
Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >That should take care of the failing network related tests that contain
> >rump.route commands, but that's not all of the failing tests.
>
> Thanks! I fixed that now. Let's see how many break after this...
413 on my bare metal testbed (20 steps forward, 202 steps back):
In article <19747.1585851...@jinx.noi.kre.to>,
Robert Elz wrote:
>Date:Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:25:01 -0400
>From:Christos Zoulas
>Message-ID: <3d3ac2b9-5e6e-400c-9a4b-10742c90c...@zoulas.com>
>
> | All the tests are failing for you the same way:
> | rump.route:
Date:Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:25:01 -0400
From:Christos Zoulas
Message-ID: <3d3ac2b9-5e6e-400c-9a4b-10742c90c...@zoulas.com>
| All the tests are failing for you the same way:
| rump.route: SO_RERROR: Socket operation on non-socket
Not all, but quite a few are.
This
Date:Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:25:01 -0400
From:Christos Zoulas
Message-ID: <3d3ac2b9-5e6e-400c-9a4b-10742c90c...@zoulas.com>
| All the tests are failing for you the same way:
| rump.route: SO_RERROR: Socket operation on non-socket
| <>I doubt that my gif change
Date:Mon, 30 Mar 2020 20:47:12 -0400
From:Christos Zoulas
Message-ID:
| Unfortunately they still work for me after a clean build. I am going to =
| try to download a standard build...
Does your tree have any uncommitted changes?
(I see the same 200+ tests
Unfortunately they still work for me after a clean build. I am going to try to
download
a standard build...
christos
> On Mar 30, 2020, at 3:35 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Ok, let me start a clean build.
>
> christos
>
>> On Mar 30, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Andreas Gustafsson
Ok, let me start a clean build.
christos
> On Mar 30, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
>
> Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> All the tests are failing for you the same way:
>>
>> rump.route: SO_RERROR: Socket operation on non-socket
>>
>> I doubt that my gif change affected that. This
Christos Zoulas wrote:
> All the tests are failing for you the same way:
>
> rump.route: SO_RERROR: Socket operation on non-socket
>
> I doubt that my gif change affected that. This smells to me like the rump fd
> hijack is not
> working either because we have some new system call involved or
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 08:28:10PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:25:01PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > What is your build host?
> > I am running the latest build I installed built from NetBSD/current to
> > NetBSD/current.
>
> I see the same fallout on a
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:25:01PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> What is your build host?
> I am running the latest build I installed built from NetBSD/current to
> NetBSD/current.
I see the same fallout on a NetBSD-current build on a NetBSD-current
(but it crept in delayed, probably because
>
>> 2. The gif related tests are failing because of a recent change to record
>> mac addresses
>>I committed a fix for that.
>
> Your fix didn't work; the gif tests are still failing with
> src/tests/net/net_common.sh 1.40:
>
>
>
Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I've been looking into this:
> 1. The libcrypto/bn test just needs more time
That may be. That one never failed on real hardware for me (it just
went from taking 3 seconds to 14), but 200+ other test cases did fail,
and still do.
> 2. The gif related tests are failing
I've been looking into this:
1. The libcrypto/bn test just needs more time
2. The gif related tests are failing because of a recent change to record mac
addresses
I committed a fix for that.
3. The rest of the tests (I've sampled 5 of them) don't fail for me.
christos
> On Mar 30, 2020, at
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:44:49PM +0300, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> Martin Husemann wrote:
> > -current just had a serious regression in test results, it seems like
> > ~all networking tests are failing now:
>
> Many (most?) of these have been failing for more than a week now, as
> reported on
Martin Husemann wrote:
> -current just had a serious regression in test results, it seems like
> ~all networking tests are failing now:
Many (most?) of these have been failing for more than a week now, as
reported on current-users in
rump.route: SO_RERROR: Socket operation on non-socket
Many of the ones not failing "silently" show that.
Martin
-current just had a serious regression in test results, it seems like
~all networking tests are failing now:
Failed test cases:
dev/audio/t_audio:AUDIO_WSEEK,
lib/libc/sys/t_ptrace_sigchld:traceme_raise1,
lib/libc/sys/t_ptrace_wait:core_dump_procinfo,
26 matches
Mail list logo
