From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36035) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bxXG8-000776-Pp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:41:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bxXG5-0005Ly-N7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:41:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bxXG5-0005Lp-HQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:41:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:41:01 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20161021104101.GJ6585@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" References: <1476971286-10612-1-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com> <20161021102836.GH6585@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL v1 00/10] Merge qio 2016/10/20 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:38AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 21 October 2016 at 11:28, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 05:11:56PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> Unfortunately the new test seems to fail on OSX: > >> > >> GTESTER tests/test-io-channel-socket > >> ** > >> ERROR:/Users/pm215/src/qemu-for-merges/tests/test-io-channel-socket.c:386:void > >> test_io_channel_unix(_Bool): assertion failed: > >> (g_file_test(TEST_SOCKET, G_FILE_TEST_EXISTS) == FALSE) > >> GTester: last random seed: R02S300c198252e54fe12ff5d64603150e68 > >> ** > >> ERROR:/Users/pm215/src/qemu-for-merges/tests/test-io-channel-socket.c:386:void > >> test_io_channel_unix(_Bool): assertion failed: > >> (g_file_test(TEST_SOCKET, G_FILE_TEST_EXISTS) == FALSE) > >> GTester: last random seed: R02S7ade3405366ffc33ad5cf50619671f53 > > > > Oh interesting - I've just seen my Travis CI build check also failed > > over night on OS-X. > > > > I wonder if OS-X automatically deletes UNIX non-abstract sockets paths > > on the filesystem when the socket FD is closed ?!?! > > The assertion is the other way round, isn't it? It's trying to > assert that the path doesn't exist, but in fact it does > (and it's still lying around in my working tree after the > test failure). Oooooh, I'm looking at the wrong test case. I was assuming it was the newly added test case that failed, whereas it is the original test case we've regressd on. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|