[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Two small fixes to the streaming test case.
From: |
Kevin Wolf |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Two small fixes to the streaming test case. |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:41:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 |
Am 06.06.2012 14:15, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>
>> A real patch series is preferable, having the patches as part of your
>> signature makes quoting them a bit harder with Thunderbird...
>
> Oops. Unintended, sorry.
>
>>> From 644fda4d6da1a5babfc8884f255d87ebaf847616 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>>> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:07:56 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] qemu-iotests: fill streaming test image with data
>>>
>>> This avoids that the job completes too fast when the file system
>>> reports the hole to QEMU (via FIEMAP or SEEK_HOLE).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>>
>> Does this really fix the cause or just a symptom? The commit message
>> sounds like a race and now we happen to win it again. But maybe it's
>> just a bad wording that gives the impression.
>
> No, unfortunately that's exactly the case. The whole TestStreamStop
> test case is racy.
>
> If the job completes before we can cancel it, it fails. If we remove
> the sleep the job will be canceled before it has even started, and the
> test succeeds but I'm not sure it is testing anything worthwhile.
>
> But if the image is left sparse, then the job has really nothing to do
> except reading one L2-table. You're pretty much guaranteed to complete
> the job too soon, and the test fails.
Ah, you're talking about the cases where we cancel, this wasn't quite
clear and so I looked at the wrong tests. Thanks for the explanations,
the patches make sense to me now.
Can you resend a v2 as an actual patch series and use that opportunity
to make the commit messages a bit more detailed?
Kevin