Re: [PATCH 0/2] hw/block/nvme: handle transient dma errors

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

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-reply@patchew.org wrote:
>>>> Patchew URL: https://patchew.org/QEMU/20200629202053.1223342-1-its@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-its@irrelevant.dk/
>>>
>>
>